John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. You've raised some, I think, very, very important points. These are not partisan issues. This is not Democratic or Republican. Over the years both parties have been champions of infrastructure investment, and both parties have been very clear about the need to respond to the disasters that have occurred. We need to be ahead of this, and we need to work together. It's our responsibility, 435 of us here in the House of Representatives, as we end this session, we should be willing to step forward in the lame duck session, provide the resources that are needed immediately, if they are not now available, for the rebuilding, for the humanitarian efforts and the recovery that's necessary. Then, we should, although I don't know that this would happen, we should take that step forward to put in place those programs that will create an infrastructure that will protect Americans from the occurrences that we know have happened and will happen in the future. You've mentioned one that I think is very important, an infrastructure bank, together with the Build America Bonds, shifting unnecessary tax breaks from one industry back into others so that we can build. As we do this, as we do this rebuilding, as we do these infrastructures, it comes to my mind, something you and I have spent many days talking about here on the floor, is that we make it in America, that we use American-made equipment to build these projects, we use American-made equipment and supplies in the construction activities. In doing so, we not only put in place the infrastructure, which is an investment for the long term, but we also build and rebuild the American manufacturing sector. So we can have a win, and a win, and another win. So, we can have a triple win here if we are wise in putting our policies together. I know that many of our colleagues on the Republican side have taken up these issues. We have time, 2 months now in this session, to deal with this. Obviously, we have the big deficit issue. But we also know that in that deficit issue, we cannot forget the immediate needs of America, and the long-term benefits that come from strategic investments. I'll wrap with this, and then if you would care to call this a session. I was flipping through the channels trying to find the latest news on the current scandal in Washington, and I came across, I think it must have been a PBS show on the Brooklyn Bridge. I think it was David McCullough who had written a book on the Brooklyn Bridge. And the 150th anniversary of the Brooklyn Bridge is this year or maybe next year. It's in this period of time. It's a piece of infrastructure that has served New York City, and in a larger context, the Nation, for 150 years. So, what we can do now as we rebuild New York, New Jersey, and the other areas, and, please, California also, as we protect ourselves from these natural disasters, we will put in place investments that will serve for multiple generations into the future. Now, that's a capital investment with an enormous return, as the Brooklyn Bridge was 150 years ago. So, we have these opportunities, and we ought to take advantage of them, not just for humanitarian reasons, but also for immediate jobs and long-term investments. That's our task. That's what we ought to be about. Not a Democrat, not a Republican idea, but a true American idea that goes way back to the very early ages of our country. Mr. Tonko, if you'd care to wrap, we'll call this a day.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Representative Tonko, once again, it's good to be with you on the floor, sadly reliving what you and I discussed here almost a year ago in response to Hurricane Irene and the devastation that occurred in your community. It seems to me that there are many, many lessons to learn here, some of which I talked about before you came in. Certainly the ability to know well ahead of time what is coming. We saw with Hurricane Sandy that NASA was able to anticipate, the Weather Service was able to anticipate the nature of the storm and where it was going. That ability to understand what is happening and what is likely to happen really comes from the support of the Federal Government appropriating money to those agencies and then directing those agencies to provide those services. This is something we need to keep in mind. As we go through the deficit reductions that we must do, we must begin a prioritization of those things that are critical to the well- being--indeed, the lives--of Americans. We also know that we are going to have to rebuild. Ms. Velazquez was suggesting that it was going to cost some $20 billion for New York City alone. And Mr. Pallone didn't give us a number, but we can anticipate billions for the New Jersey area. And then the areas in upstate New York and Pennsylvania with lesser numbers, fortunately. But nonetheless, it begins to add up to a huge amount of money. And some of the damage is not well known even today. I was talking with representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 500 of whom came from northern California to assist in New York, and we were talking about what those men and women were doing. They said, in the subway systems that were flooded, they were flooded with seawater. And the effect of salt on the electrical systems is--it's over. You've got to replace the entire electrical system. But not just to replace it, but to then anticipate that it could happen again, so to upgrade the entire infrastructure, to provide the protection that should it happen, you won't lose the entire subway system as has occurred in New York City. So we need the infrastructure to be replaced but then also to be significantly enhanced. This is a very, very expensive proposition. It's also a way in which people could go back to work and we could enhance the employment. We can do this. In fact, indeed, we must do it. The American Society of Civil Engineers has said clearly that the infrastructure of America--not just New York City and New Jersey, but my own State of California, the flood control systems we have in our State are woefully inadequate, and they address it as a D. Fortunately, not an F. But not an A, not a B, not a C, but a D. So we know that we have extraordinary needs here. The President, in his American Jobs Act, proposed a $50 billion addition to what we normally do with our infrastructure, which is a lot, an additional $50 billion to be spent in 2 to 3 years. That's a critical boost. And I know the cities I represent--the Sacramento area; Natomas area, one of the most dangerous places in America for flooding; Marysville and Yuba City; the delta, where I live--are all subject to flooding. We need to enhance our levees in order to protect ourselves, not from a 100-year, but from a 200-year storm, which is much more likely to occur. We can pay for these things. This doesn't have to add to the deficit. For every dollar we put into infrastructure, we get $2-plus back in economic growth. So it's actually an investment, a short-term and long- term investment that will last for years. There's another thing that we have which is no longer authorized. Part of the Recovery Act, the stimulus bill, was the creation of Build America Bonds. The President proposed that as part of his infrastructure program, the Build America Bonds, which are called BABs--it took me a while to figure that one out. But BABs, Build America Bonds, are partly funded by the Federal Government and partly funded by the local agencies and had an enormous effect on enhancing infrastructure, sanitation systems, water systems in communities. Let's talk a little bit about these kinds of things, the effect that they may have on your communities in New York, Pennsylvania, and others.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Pallone. There is no part of this Nation that is immune from a natural disaster. The disasters will be different: tornadoes, superstorms, hurricanes, droughts, floods, and fires. The west coast, we talk earthquakes. You could talk earthquakes on the east coast, and certainly the new Madrid fault in the central Missouri area ought to keep everybody a little bit nervous. So wherever it is around this Nation, the disasters could occur, and the response which you described is critically important, that is, the forewarning and then the response when the disaster actually hits. But the preparation to put in place the infrastructure to best protect those critical parts of the communities, Ms. Velazquez talked about the refineries which were badly damaged by the storm. There are certain things that can be done to protect them; and in doing so, you protect your power supplies, the grid systems, seawalls and the like. All of these things are critically important. I remember last year I was on this floor with my colleague from the New York area who was deeply concerned about another storm that came through. Was it Irene, I believe, that came through the northeast and created significant damage. Mr. Paul Tonko, you spoke with great skill and compassion about your citizens, their lessons learned, and things to share with us today.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I noticed that we've now been joined by another representative from an area that was significantly damaged, Mr. Pallone from New Jersey. Perhaps you would like to share with us your thoughts and your experience. I did see you on CNN one night as you were working with your constituents trying to meet the disaster in your area.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I know that you're deeply involved in small business. You're the ranking member of the Small Business Committee here in the House of Representatives. I would expect that there would be a significant opportunity for small businesses in this also.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I will share with you my experience in my part of California, which is the Sacramento Valley, the city of Sacramento and the surrounding area. We have significant flood potential. In fact, the northern part of Sacramento is considered to be the most flood prone or dangerous city in America after New Orleans. That creates a need in my own region for some of those same protective measures. We call them levees, not seawalls, but rather levees. They have to be improved. We anticipate the cost in Natomas, which is part of Sacramento, to be well over $1.4 billion. Another city I represent, Marysville, needs some $20 million to protect that city, and then Yuba City next to it. The entire region that I represent has similar needs. I shouldn't use the word ``similar,'' because we're not on the ocean. But we have needs for flood protection just like New York City and New Jersey. We can do this. We're a very strong and powerful Nation, and you couldn't be more correct by saying that if we do it, we protect ourselves, we reduce the potential damage, and we also put people to work.

Mr. GARAMENDI. For New York City. Not including New Jersey?

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much. Maybe we can engage in a little colloquy here, and we can talk about this in a little more detail. The storm surge that came into New York was anticipated, but the New York/New Jersey region were not prepared with the necessary infrastructure to protect the communities from that surge. And if I understood you correctly, you're suggesting that the cities or the region needs to put in place those infrastructures to protect it. The subways have to be secured from the inflow of water, and the seawalls and certain other things need to be put in place. Did you estimate a cost of some $20 billion?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, we're back, and America expects that we ought to be going back to work. And we have a heavy load ahead of us. We want to make sure that every American has the opportunity to climb up that economic and social ladder as high as they want to and can go. So we have to make sure that those ladders of opportunity are in place. We also have to make sure that we are a compassionate Nation, that we're willing to reach out to those in our country who have been harmed by devastating natural disasters. We certainly saw this on the east coast, and I'd like to spend a good portion of this hour talking about how we, as a Nation, can respond to superstorm Sandy and the lessons that we should learn from this disaster. It's not the first that has occurred in America, and it's certainly not going to be the last. In previous disasters, we learned a few lessons, but it seems as though we have yet to achieve the necessary wisdom from those occurrences to really put in place the policies that can protect Americans. First, our sense of compassion drives Americans to reach out in many different ways to assist those on the east coast that were so severely harmed by this storm. Our condolences go out to the families of those who were killed in the storm. Our wallets open to the American Red Cross and other organizations that are providing assistance. We should do that and we should do more of that, but as a Congress there are things that we must also do. Proposals have been made on this floor to reduce the effectiveness and the support for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Not a good idea. It's very clear from the disaster on the east coast that a single city or State or even a region is unable to adequately address--whether in the lead-up to a disaster where there is warning or in the immediate aftermath of that--the necessary resources to assist and to recover. As a Nation, we need some mechanism to gather together all of the strength of this incredible country we call America and apply that strength to those who have been so severely harmed by that disaster. That's occurring. FEMA has clearly been significantly improved in the last 4 years and certainly since the tragedies of New Orleans, but there is much more that needs to be done. As a Congress, as Representatives of the American people--people who may be in any part of this country and who at any moment could be affected by a disaster--we need to make sure that there is a national response capability in place that is ready to act with the sufficient resources. That's not just an organizational and administrative issue. That is also the necessary funds available. Shortchanging that money that we set aside for those disasters can lead to a period of time in which inaction is inevitable. So as we go about our budgeting, as we go about our appropriations process, we must make sure that we do not shortchange and that we provide enough money, that we set it aside and have it there, available for immediate response. It's not just the Federal response. It's those private companies and others that will be hired by the Federal Government or the States and cities to provide the necessary services. There are many other lessons to be learned from superstorm Sandy and from previous disasters. Early warning systems are essential. Yet we have seen proposals here before the Congress, in the budgets and appropriations before the Congress, to diminish the ability of America to see ahead--to be able to predict storms or earthquakes or fires--by diminishing the money available for NASA in their satellite technology and other research capabilities that are out there by which we can learn well ahead of a disaster that it's coming so that we can then warn the citizens and take whatever precautions are necessary and implement whatever defensive systems may be required. So it's not just the disaster. It's the preparation. It's the early warning--the ability to know what may be coming to harm the citizens of this Nation. As a Congress, we should be cognizant of the role that we play in providing the resources, the direction, and the authorization for those agencies that are able to have the technologies to perceive, to understand what may be coming to the citizens of this Nation and to those around the world. Secondly, as individuals, it seems to me we ought to be paying attention, and when the authorities say it's time to leave, we really ought to do that. I was the insurance commissioner and Lieutenant Governor in California, and I often found myself in situations where I had responsibilities along these lines. All too often and all too tragically, the citizens who were warned early that they should leave because of a fire danger did not. Tragedy struck and they lost their lives. So we have individual responsibilities as well as community responsibilities. There is another set of lessons to learn from superstorm Sandy and the drought in the Midwest and from other occurrences in the weather patterns of this Nation, which is that climate change is real. It is real. It is actually happening as we speak. We know that the great ice caps around this world are diminishing. We know that the ocean levels are rising. We know that there is a warming across the entire planet, and we know that this will have profound effects. It was predicted back in the early nineties when I was working on this issue at the Department of the Interior as Deputy Secretary. We predicted that there would be superstorms, that there would be droughts in new parts of this Nation, that the ice caps would melt, that there would be significant changes in the agricultural patterns around the world, and that certainly there would be significant changes in the river and stream flows. In my own State of California, we anticipated then--some almost 20 years ago now--in the Sierras, which is our single biggest reservoir, that we would see the snow pack diminish and that we would see there would be changes in the flows of the rivers and, quite likely, greater flooding. That brings us to the necessity of recognizing this as a Nation and for this Congress to work to address not just the reasons for climate change but, just as important, to prepare for the inevitability of the effects of climate change. A small rise in the sea level will certainly change the impact of major storms on all of our coastlines. The storm surges will be higher, the destruction greater, and therefore the twofold necessity: one, to do everything we possibly can to diminish climate change. That brings us to energy policy, which is not the subject of today's discussion; but it brings us, rather, to the issue of how we are going to effect and prepare for the inevitable changes. A little over a year ago, the President proposed the American Jobs Act. In that American Jobs Act, there was a substantial increase--in fact, a very significant increase--in the amount of money that this Nation would spend on infrastructure. In addition to what we would normally do, the President proposed an additional $50 billion of infrastructure investment in the near term, over the next 2 to 3 years. Unfortunately, that proposal was not even brought up in the current Congress. Nonetheless, it is a proposal that we as Members of this House should give considerable thought to. I look now to the east coast and the west coast and to my own district in California, which is the Sacramento Valley, and I'm looking at the President's proposal of some $50 billion, and saying: What if? What if we would actually undertake a major infrastructure action in the United States? What if we were to really prepare ourselves for the inevitable climate change? What would it mean to Americans? Certainly, right off, it would mean jobs. It would mean that we would be able to employ, perhaps, 2 million people immediately in building that infrastructure. It also means something beyond that. It could mean we would increase the deficit; or if we were wise, it could mean that we would not increase the deficit at all and that we would simply make some shifts in certain tax breaks that are now given to various parts of our economy--for example, to the oil and gas industry--and shift those tax breaks around so that we would fund infrastructure projects. In fact, that's what the President proposed to do. Before I go further into how we might use the effort to build infrastructure, I want to say that that infrastructure program is going to be absolutely essential to rebuild an extraordinarily important part of this Nation; that is, the east coast. New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and some parts of Pennsylvania were devastated. There is going to be a multibillion-dollar rebuilding program necessary just to go back to where those parts of this country were before the storm hit. Much more will be needed to protect those parts of this country from future storms that are certain to occur. I'll let it go at that. I see my colleague from New York City has arrived here. I'd like her to pick this issue up and talk about the devastation that occurred in her communities, and then we can come back to the infrastructure. Thank you for joining us, Nydia. I suppose the proper introduction would be Nydia Velazquez.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate three local heroes from the 10th District of California, Keshia Baker, Natalie Coughlin and Heather Petri. At the 2012 London Olympic Games Keshia won the gold medal in the Women's 4x400m relay, Natalie won the Bronze in the Women's 4x100m freestyle swimming relay and Heather won gold as part of the Women's Water Polo team. These three inspiring women having assured places on the storied list of Olympians from our district, and have become role models of our community. Keshia was a first time Olympian in London but you wouldn't know by the way she carried herself. Keshia graduated from Fairfield High in 2006 whereupon she attended the University of Oregon. In between setting athletic records at Oregon, Keisha started her own non-profit supporting young disadvantaged student athletes as well as graduating with Honors in Psychology. Natalie is an Olympic veteran and a national household name who has performed at an amazing level as a member of the US Women's swimming team since 2004. Winning her 12th medal at the London games, Natalie has tied two others as the most highly decorated female Olympians in American history. As a lifelong resident of Vallejo and a graduate of my alma mater CAL, Natalie is and will continue to be an inspiration within our community. Heather, a four-time Olympic veteran, has competed at a winning level for the past 12 years. Due in no small part to her excellent leadership and tenacity, the US Women's Water Polo Team earned gold in London. This was her fourth Olympic medal. Even at a young age Heather was an exceptional athlete; a founding member of her high school team, and a highly decorated college athlete from CAL, her success has been no surprise to our community. Olympians are more than just exceptional athletes, they are exceptional Americans. Their ability to hurdle any obstacle, to apply hard work, dedication and perseverance to their goals embodies the best of the American spirit and the American people; they are role models to us all and ambassadors for America and we thank them.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, today is a day of reflection and sadness, and also determination and resolve. The tragic killing of our Ambassador in Libya and his staff should remind us all of the dangers that exist around the world. So we offer our prayers to the families and to the survivors. We also need to think about the future in America and about the necessity for developing alternative energy systems. The production tax credit for wind is absolutely essential. I represent two major wind farms, one in Solano and the other in Alameda County. Thousands of jobs across this Nation will be lost unless we extend the wind tax credit. Keep in mind that for a century we have subsidized the oil and gas industry. It's time for us to provide the support necessary to create this industry. We also ought to be making it in America. One of my bills, H.R. 6217, would require that 85 percent of the content of these turbines and solar systems be made in America.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 25, 2012, I was called away from the votes here on the House Floor in order to address an important announcement regarding the Bay Delta Conservation Plan in California. The joint announcement from California Governor, Jerry Brown, and United States Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, will have huge implications for my constituents and all Californians. Therefore, I felt it was absolutely necessary to address my concerns regarding the new plan. Nevertheless, I realize the importance of the votes I missed. Therefore, I would like to state for the record how I would have voted on the bills that were before the House of Representatives, yesterday. First, I would have supported H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2012. I would have opposed H.R. 6082, the Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan. Lastly, I would have supported H.R. 6168, President Obama's Proposed 2012-2017 Offshore Drilling Lease Sale Plan Act.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. If we're going to really be caring about the American worker going back to work, we also need to be very cognizant of international competition. You spoke earlier about the need for our workforce to be competitive, which is the education process--K-12, vocational education, community colleges. They're exceedingly important. Also important is that there be fairness in the international trade situation, that we look not just for free trade but fair trade. One of the things that we really must address is the threat of China's unfair trade practices. The Chinese currency is undervalued; and as a result of that, they have a 20 to 25 percent advantage. You eliminate that, and the American worker will be competitive. We have one of the pieces of legislation in the Make It In America package that the Democrats are putting forward which is forcing China to end its currency manipulation. When it ends its currency manipulation and allows the value of its currency to rise to appropriate parity, we will be able to be competitive. You can bet why the Chinese don't want to do it. They want that unfair trade advantage. That's one of the pieces of legislation that we put forward. When the Democrats controlled Congress a year and a half ago, we pushed a bill out of here that would force sanctions on China if they continued their currency manipulation. Since the Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives, that legislation has died, has never even come up for a vote on the floor. It ought to come up for a vote. We need fair trade practices. We need to use our tax money to buy American-made equipment and supplies. We need to educate our workforces. These are investments in the American middle class. This is how we can restore the middle class of America. Health care is part of it also. You talked earlier about health care and the availability of health care for working men and women. We also need to make sure that those jobs are there. The American automobile industry is instructive on this count. It is instructive in that the U.S. Government and the leadership of President Obama actually allowed the American automotive industry to continue to even survive. Using the stimulus program, the President stepped forward and said, I will not allow the American automotive industry to die, and he put our tax money behind General Motors and Chrysler. Those companies are now thriving. And it's not just those companies. It is the thousands upon thousands of manufacturers across this Nation and others who supply all of the parts and all of the services. Think where we would be today if Congress had not given the President the power and if this President did not have the courage to take up saving the American automobile industry. Presidential politics come here. Mr. Romney says he would not have done it. Okay. President Obama did it, and the American automobile industry is strong and vibrant today, and the American middle class is back to work. Mr. Tonko, we must be about out of time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Social Security.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me for interrupting. Before you came to the House of Representatives, that was your work in New York, wasn't it?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, there is one additional piece to this puzzle, and that is that the Democrats have been putting forth for the last 2 years a project which we call Make It in America. This is the rebuilding of the American manufacturing sector. Twenty-five years ago, there were just under 20 million Americans employed in manufacturing. These were the middle class jobs. Now there are just over 11 million. We've seen the hollowing out--we've seen the outsourcing--of American manufacturing jobs. There were actually policies in place before the Democrats in 2010 took control of this and ended tax breaks for American corporations that outsourced jobs. They actually were able to reduce their taxes by sending jobs overseas. We ended about $12 billion of those crazy, unnecessary, destructive tax breaks. Now the President has suggested that we put in place the remaining $4 billion. End those tax breaks, which is ending the rewarding of companies for outsourcing jobs. Turn it around and reward companies for in-sourcing, for bringing those jobs back home. I have a piece of legislation that we've been working on, and it's actually getting some legs and moving along. It's part of Make It in America. Our tax dollars have been used in the past to buy foreign-made solar systems, wind turbines, trains, buses, light rail vehicles. My legislation says, if it's our tax money, then, by golly, it's going to be spent on American-made equipment, bringing our tax dollars home so that we buy American, so that we Make It in America once again. When we Make It in America, America will make it. Mr. Tonko, I know that you are also into this with some pieces of legislation that you have, and maybe you'll want to talk about those. We can rebuild the American middle class by rebuilding America's manufacturing base. That's where you create wealth. Maybe it's in the food services. Maybe it's in the manufacturing of wine or in the manufacturing of food or automobiles or light rails or solar systems. We can do it, but we need to have in place smart government policies. I beg my Republican colleagues to take a look at this. Don't just assume it's a Democratic idea. Make this an American idea, a Democrat and Republican idea, to change our policies so that we can rebuild the American middle class by making things in America once again.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, you might actually have bathrooms that work. You might actually have a place where kids would want to be. You'll have a school that has a decent paint job, air conditioning. Kids would want to be in that school. Yet we have schools across this Nation where you wouldn't want to be and I wouldn't want to be, and I certainly wouldn't want my kids in that classroom.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me for interrupting, but if you look at the Ryan Republican budget, it would cut education and other services by 33 percent. So instead of investing in our children, investing in re- educating and helping our workforce learn new skills, they would cut it by 33 percent. In transportation, the Ryan Republican budget would cut transportation funding by 25 percent, even when we know that our infrastructure gets a D because of potholes, because the bridges are failing. So why would you cut the transportation budget by 25 percent? If you want to put Americans back to work, you don't do it that way. And you did talk about Moody Analytics already. It doesn't work. Now, I'm going to just pick up one more thing. I'm on the House Armed Services Committee, and we heard testimony last week from the CEO of Lockheed Martin, and the CEO of EADS, and also from two other witnesses. And they said this: you cut the budget for defense, and you're going to lay off 2 million people. That's part of the sequestration. So here you have the top CEOs of America's big huge companies saying don't cut the budget because you are going to lay Americans off. You're going to lose up to 2 million jobs. And yet for the last 2 years, our Republican friends have been trying to cut the budget. Not in defense, but in everything else, arguing that that will somehow create jobs. However, testimony received last week from the CEOs of three large American corporations and one smaller corporation said categorically, If you cut the budget, we'll lay people off--creating unemployment. The American Jobs Act puts people back to work, and it is fully paid for.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me, 4.1 million jobs total.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, let me just pick up a little more on the education. The most important investment any society will ever make is the education of their children and the re-education of their workforce. In the American Jobs Act there are the 280,000 teachers that would have been in the classroom this entire year. They're not there today because there's been no movement on this floor to even debate in committee, let alone take up a vote on this floor, the American Jobs Act. Also, many of the schools across America are run down. Their laboratories, their classrooms are antiquated. They don't have air conditioning, many, many other problems. The American Jobs Act provided money for 35,000 schools across the United States to be upgraded, to be rehabilitated so that 250,000 jobs would have been created right there. Before we go any further, I know you're all worried, oh, it's going to increase the deficit. The American Jobs Act would increase the deficit. No, it would not. Mr. Tonko, you spoke earlier about when people go to work, the economy gets going, money is circulated, taxes are paid. The other part of it is, the American Jobs Act was fully paid for by ending unnecessary tax subsidies to companies that don't need it, specifically the oil industry. The wealthiest industry in the world would lose its tax breaks that amount to over $16 billion, and that money would come back to pay for Americans going back to work. There are other things. The top end tax, at the very top end, the wealthiest 2 percent would see their taxes go back to where they were during the Clinton period. This is how the American Jobs Act was going to be paid for. Mr. Tonko.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I was reading one of the Hill magazines--often called the Hill rags--and they said that the Speaker of this House starts off his weekly press conference by asking: Where are the jobs? Well, the jobs, Mr. Speaker, were proposed last September by President Obama--the American Jobs Act. Two million jobs minimum could have been created. This is one of the great woulda, coulda, shoulda's of our time. We could have had people back to work today, and in doing so reducing the deficit. There are so many different pieces of this. Mr. Speaker, the American Jobs Act are where the jobs are. You talked about a piece of it. I'm going to just pick up one more. This is one that speaks to the American homes, what's going on in the house where we live. Many of those homes are run down, they have problems with insulation, or they don't have any insulation at all. They leak energy. Well, the President proposed, as a piece of the American Jobs Act, that we could provide construction jobs, really, low-skilled construction jobs, in rehabilitating the American homes. This is not a new concept. This has been going on for some time. It's been used repeatedly to upgrade homes in the United States and simultaneously save energy and save dollars for the American public. One piece of it, construction jobs, could have been put in place. I'm going to pick up another one, and then I'm going to turn it back to you, Mr. Tonko. My daughter is a teacher, my son-in-law is a teacher. They've seen their class size just grow from 20, 22 to some 32 people in the class. Now, this is a serious problem for the teacher, making it more difficult to provide the quality teaching that's necessary. My daughter is a great teacher, my son-in-law is too, but it's much more difficult. The class size has increased by a third. The American Jobs Act would have put 280,000 teachers back into the classroom. Now, if you happen to be a second-grader and you're not getting what you need to learn, then that's going to carry on through the remaining years of your schooling. And so 280,000 teachers could have been brought back into the classroom had the American Jobs Act passed. Mr. Tonko.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you very much for your passion on this issue, and thank you for your compassion for the American people. We can make it. We can make it in America. We need good and wise policies to do that. You can't do it by cutting, cutting, and cutting. You have to do it by investing, investing, investing. The American public understands. They really do understand that we're a great Nation. There is no greater nation in the world. We need the kind of policies that will put Americans back to work and keep them healthy. I want to thank those of you that are listening to this hour of discussion on health care and on jobs in America. Mr. Tonko, thank you very much, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, Mr. Tonko, thank you very much. Next Monday, did you know, next Monday is the annual birthday of Medicare? Next Monday. It went into effect in 1965, and ever since, as you said earlier, Republicans have been trying to terminate it. They tried again this year, but the American public knows better. They know that they want to live long enough to get to Medicare because in Medicare they have a guaranteed benefit. They know that wherever you are in the United States, whether you are in Vermont or in California, you have the same quality policy that will cover most of what you need. If you want more, you can go out and buy that, that's called the Advantage program. And you get to choose your program. It's not a government takeover at all. In fact, it is a financing mechanism so that every senior in America can choose their own provider. They get to choose their provider. They can go wherever they want to go to get their medical services. And if they don't like their doctor, they can change. So the government is not saying where you can go. In fact, the government is financing the system so you can choose whatever provider you want to choose. It is a common policy across the Nation. It is efficient and it is effective, and the Republicans are trying to destroy it. We won't let that happen. Bottom line, we will not let that happen. And there are serious cost containments in the current Medicare program and in the Affordable Care Act. I'm just going to end with this, and then we really need to get to what we wanted to talk about, which were the job programs. The Congressional Budget Office today estimated that the Affordable Care Act, over the next 10 years, will reduce the deficit by $109 billion. In the 20 years going out, because of the cost containment in this system, the Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by over $1 trillion. Now, that's worth engaging. That's worth us doing. And simultaneously provide far better health care to Americans and far better access to health care wherever they may need it across this Nation. It's a good thing. When they want to stand up here and say ObamaCare, I'm going, you're right, Obama cares--cares deeply about the very health of every single American. That's why the Affordable Care Act is in place today, was found to be constitutional, does reduce the deficit, and does provide quality health care and choice of where you want to get your medical care.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, exactly so. For 8 years in the early nineties and then in 2000, I was the insurance commissioner in California. I wish I had this law because I could have held the insurance companies responsible. Now, my attitude about them is they always put profit before people. However, the Affordable Care Act has what we call the Patient's Bill of Rights, and this is the insurance discrimination that is eliminated by this law. And you spoke of a couple of these issues. Discrimination against a woman simply because they're a woman. They have an existing condition. They're a woman. They could get pregnant. So the insurance companies would not cover or they would charge more. Those days are over. Also, a young child, there are about 17 million children in America with preexisting conditions that can no longer be discriminated against by the insurance company. They have to be able to get insurance from an insurance company, 17 million children, one of whom is the son of my chief of staff, born with kidney failure. He had insurance the day he was born. He immediately lost insurance because he had kidney failure, and today, as soon as he leaves his parents' policy, which he's able to get now under the law because they cannot discriminate against children, he will be able to continue to get insurance. Under the old law, repeal the ObamaCares law and he will be denied insurance because there is an end to the Patient's Bill of Rights. The Patient's Bill of Rights guarantees that insurance discrimination is over. So what do they want here? What do the Republicans want from Americans? A big question. Apparently, they want more money for the doctors, and that's certainly necessary in some cases. Apparently, they say they want government out of health care. Does that mean end Medicare? Apparently, yes, because the Republicans have voted twice on this floor to end Medicare as we know it. You'll get a voucher. You will not have guaranteed coverage, and you will have to go out and shop for it yourself. Apparently, they don't want community clinics because they've already voted on this floor to cut about one-third of the community clinics in this Nation. Apparently, they talk about access, but at the same time they refuse to fund the residencies for family care, for the basic health care providers that we need in our hospitals and in our communities. And apparently, they want to eliminate the Patient's Bill of Rights. This is not a formula for America's health care. Now, we also heard on this floor a few minutes ago, a half hour, 45 minutes ago, that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that because the Supreme Court eliminated the mandate that States have to provide more Medicaid coverage there would be fewer insured. True. That's true. Texas has refused to increase its Medicaid program. Well, that is Texas' decision, and I'm sure the Governor and legislature will have to address that. But the fact here is that the Medicaid coverage actually provides the opportunity for some 17 million Americans to get insurance that do not now have insurance. If we provide the clinics, if we provide the residencies for the doctors who would be able to care for them, they will have access. I can assure you that if we also do the preventative services, we will see a decline in the number of severe cases. People will not get so sick that they have to go to the emergency room. They'll get care early. And with the drugs that are necessary, they'll be able to avoid the very expensive illnesses. That's to all of our benefit. You mentioned vaccinations. These are all ways of reducing costs. So here we are, once again, debating something that is now the law, that is proven, proven to provide services to Americans, whether they are seniors or whether they are young, whether they are children. It works, and it's working for America today.