John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I want to thank my colleague from California for reminding all of us that there are consequences for what we do here. This current wholly manufactured debt crisis has people very, very nervous. The women that Ms. Speier talked about, concerned and nervous about their Social Security checks, whether they will be able to get their medical care, and today's Wall Street Journal, the first five items on what's news, various businesses around the world and financial institutions being prepared for the first time ever in America's history that our debt may not be worth a hoot. It may be worthless, that we're going to default. This is a totally manufactured, unnecessary crisis. We didn't have to be here. I want us all to step back a little ways, step back to December 2010, when we had another manufactured crisis. It came time to fund the Federal Government and to deal with some issues having to do with unemployment. And the Republicans in the Senate held us hostage and demanded that we extend the high-end Bush tax cuts, which created a $700 billion deficit. We went ahead and did that, and rolled the issue forward 3 months so that in February we would have yet another crisis, the funding or the shutdown of the Federal Government. Yet again another opportunity for our Republican colleagues to create a crisis so that they could use it to force onto the American public their policies, which became very evident what they wanted to do. They wanted to reconfigure the entire American scene. They wanted to roll back Social Security. They wanted to end Medicare for all Americans who are not yet 55 years of age. They wanted to end the programs to support higher education, to reduce research, to reduce funding for food safety programs. They used these manufactured crises to shut down a government. And yet here we are again with the debt limit, first discussed back in May, and then because of the Treasury Department's ability to continue paying bills, we are now up against the final deadline of August 2. Yet again a totally manufactured unnecessary crisis. Previously, Ronald Reagan said: Don't do this. Do not put the good faith and credit of the American government on the line. He told the Republicans, his Republicans back in the 1980s, honor the debt. This is not about new spending, this is about spending going back a century. This is about the American bills that were paid or not paid years ago, and that's our debt today. We don't need to do this. There are options. We're putting forth, as we did earlier, a clean debt limit increase. Get us past this. We are also looking at the opportunity for the President to invoke the 14th Amendment, the fourth clause of the 14th Amendment, that says America will honor its debts. I believe he has the power, issuing an Executive order to the Treasury Department: pay our debts. This is something that is fundamental for America, and we must do it. Put aside this manufactured crisis. It didn't need to be real, but it has become all too real in these last few days as our Republican colleagues are unable to get their act together, even to put forth a proposal that would eviscerate necessary programs. Can't even do that. The President has called for a balanced approach, one of taxes, raising the taxes that should have been raised back in December and eliminate some $700 billion of this problem, but let's do it now. Let's go after the oil companies that are receiving our tax money at the very same time that over the last decade they have created nearly a trillion dollars of profit. They don't need our tax money. The poor in America, the senior citizens in America, they are the ones that need help. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. It's useful to read, and the characteristic of order No. 3310, which is the subject matter, was well described by the gentleman from Washington--if one were to read the order, the order basically directs the Bureau of Land Management to continue to do its studies for the purpose of identifying those lands that have wilderness characteristics. This is exactly what I was talking about when I raised my first point, that this particular section that is in this appropriation bill, section 124, fits directly with the piece of legislation that was authored by Mr. McCarthy and was heard in the subcommittee yesterday, and that is to terminate efforts to create wilderness areas in the United States. That's what this is all about. This is about opening lands to development, and to prohibit the Department from exercising its authority under the law to continue to investigate and to analyze our land for the value of its wilderness characteristics. Therefore, this particular clause, 124 in the appropriation bill, runs directly counter to the requirement under the existing law that's been there for more than three decades for the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, to carry out its responsibilities.

Mr. GARAMENDI. When I was the Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior, I thought that the Department of the Interior should do what it needed to do. Now that I'm here I would agree with you that they should do what we tell them to do. Just a change in jobs. However, the point here is that the language that you have put into this bill would preclude the Secretary from moving forward, even to carry out the words that are in the document itself. And I did read the document. We need to know what is on the land, and we need to know its potential uses. As I understand the amendment that you have put forward that is in this bill, it would deny the funding for those purposes to do the study. Now if I am wrong about that intent and effect of the amendment, then we've had a wonderful debate in which we all agree that the Secretary and the Department of the Interior should continue to always study the land and to take into account new information, new science, new knowledge, new GPS or satellite photos of the land. So I think, as I understand the amendment, and the intent of the amendment, it is to stop the Department from continuing to study these multiple attributes.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Reclaiming my time, sir, my apologies for interrupting you.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would love to yield briefly to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. GARAMENDI. The amendment that's being offered is perfectly appropriate. It's the duty of the Department of the Interior to carry out the law. The law requires the Secretary to review, from time to time, the status of public land. All too often, I hear my colleagues on the Republican side say that this is government land. No, no, no, this is not government land. This is our land. This is the land of the American people, owned in common for the common good. And the Secretary, carrying out that responsibility, reviews the attributes of the land. Is it good for oil? How about gas development or coal development? Or maybe it's useful as grazing land, or perhaps it should be wild and scenic land and preserved for the purpose of remaining in its most natural state. So my Republican colleagues come up and say, No, you can't look at the land. You can't study the land. We just won't want to know anything about the land, except to allow for the destruction of the land. This particular amendment doesn't come in a vacuum. This amendment leads to the House floor another bill that is likely to move out of the Resources Committee and soon be on the floor, which would take the previous work done over the last 30 years that would quantify the values of the land, scenic, natural, wilderness, and push all of that aside and say, Open all the land, all the land to what was euphemistically--I hope euphemistically--called mechanized conservation. Hmm, ``mechanized conservation.'' Sounds to me like bulldozer, drilling rigs, a stampede of cattle and the like over any and all land. Understand that this particular line in this appropriation bill goes hand in hand with a piece of legislation that went through, that was heard in the Resources Committee just yesterday, that would take all of the land that has been designated as wild and scenic some 30 years ago--some of which is said, no, it's not perfect for a wild and scenic designation--and take all of that land and open it for development. We ought not do that. Therefore, this amendment that's been brought forward by the ranking member is appropriate in that it allows the Department of the Interior to upgrade some 30-year-old studies, taking into account new scientific information, new information about the land, and making that information available to us in Congress so that we can make an informed decision about whether land should or should not be wild and scenic or whatever designation might be appropriate, including opening some land for development. But I suppose it's best to know nothing.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you for that accommodation. I think the underlying problem was well described by you, and that is that the language prohibits the Secretary from going forward with the study of the wild lands. I think that's wrong. I think it's appropriate for us to always update our studies, always to understand what has changed and what is appropriate as we go forward.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I was just listening to the debate here, saying: What are they thinking? What is the rationale? What is the purpose for the legislation that we have before us, more pointedly, the amendment that was just offered? This is an incredible country. This is a country that very recently took great pride in cleaning its rivers, in protecting its citizens from toxins and pollutants and chemicals and poisons. This is a country that took great pride in creating the first-ever in this world national park and then expanded it over time to create the most awesome National Park System in the entire world. This is a country that took great pride in the Snake River and the use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. An argument was made a moment ago that there is not enough money. Yet not more than a month ago, an effort to increase the royalties from our oil that is pumped from our land, the land of the people and of the United States--and in fact even to get a royalty--was rejected by our Republican colleagues. So money was available if we simply had gone for the royalties that should be there under any case. This legislation, however, goes far beyond that, and over time will destroy the pride that we have taken in creating our national parks, in setting aside for future generations the great vistas of America, protecting our air, our land and our water. You look at this bill. You look at the details of this bill, and you go, Oh, my. How could they? How could they put in legislation that would block the effort of the EPA to eliminate mercury poison in our air and water? How could they allow a bill that would create more soot in our atmosphere, put 34,000 lives at risk, and exempt the oil companies from air pollution standards in offshore drilling, which in California is a big deal because the air blows, the wind blows onto the land? How could they threaten the health of millions of Americans by jeopardizing the EPA's critical air, land and water regulations? Then our children. They block the EPA from limiting dangerous air pollution. How could they put together a bill that potentially could contaminate 117 million Americans' water? How could you do that? Have you no pride in this country? Do you not care about the basic things that we have done to create a country that cares about clean water? You talk about jobs. Yet, in this bill, you eliminate the funding for the Clean Water Act, which is really building sanitation facilities in our community. I remember in the 1960s the great pride that the 500 people in my community of Mokelumne Hill took when they got that money from the Federal Government and actually built the first sanitation system in that small town. How could you deny Americans the opportunity for that--and the drinking water and the jobs that go with it? That's what this bill does. Take pride in what you're doing, gentlemen, because at the end of the day, the American public will not take pride in what you're doing to this piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. What a fortuitous moment to have the opportunity to follow my colleague from California. Indeed, I do know something about the Interior budget. I was the Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior, and I know full good and well what the Department of the Interior means to America. Early this morning, I left Sacramento. My mind was very much on the debate you just suggested: What are we going to do about the deficit? But it didn't take long to realize, as I sat by the window, as I moved over the Sierra Nevada mountains into Nevada, then across to the Rockies, and across this entire Nation--for most of the way, it was rather clear--that we have an awesome, unbelievably beautiful country. We're the strongest Nation in the world, and we have great economic strength. This bill, however, would take this great Nation, the great beauty and the incredible people of America, and put them at risk. It would put this Nation's extraordinary beauty and resources at risk. That's what this is about. This isn't going to solve the budget deficit one way or the other. This is a miniscule part of the overall Federal budget. It is important--important because it is about this Nation's physical and human health. We're talking about the Environmental Protection Agency. This bill as written would bring to the people of America poison. It is the poisoning of our rivers and our air. Use whatever word you want about cleanup--use the nice words--but we're talking about poisoning the rivers and the air of America. That's what this bill does. When you take the Environmental Protection Agency and you take away its ability to protect us, then you are allowing poisons to be in our water and in our air and in our land. You look at this bill, and you're talking about the extraordinary physical nature of America. Do you want the great mountains of the Appalachians to be flattened so you can have more coal to burn and then foul the atmosphere? That's what this bill does. Do you want to take away the ability of this Nation to protect your precious Mojave Desert? That's what this bill does. Do you want to allow those who would destroy by grabbing the resources of this Nation without even bothering to pay a decent royalty? That's what this bill does whether it's the oil in the gulf or the copper in a new mine in Arizona. I've listened to the Republican bills day after day on this floor and in committee, and they would strip away the protections that Americans want for their health and for their land. That's not what we should be doing. Do you want to know where the money is? My colleague from New Jersey said it very well: It's in Afghanistan and it's in Baghdad. We're building the bridges. We're cleaning the rivers. We're providing the water and the electrical systems there to the tune of $150 billion a year. Bring our troops home. Bring our money back to America. Build America. Rebuild America. There is the answer. Not in this way will you ever solve the deficit. By the way, this bill lays off people--15,000 people at the EPA alone. This bill will not build infrastructure. This bill will take away the infrastructure for our sanitation systems, for our water systems. That's what this bill does. My colleague from California knows full good and well what's intended here. It's to give our resources to the polluters. It's to foul our air. It's to remove the ability of the people of America, not some government in Washington but the people of America, who have for the last 40 years demanded clean water, that their resources be protected, that the commons be protected. It is the people of America that want a future that's good for their children, that want a future that's viable, that want a future that does not have poisoned water and air. That's what the people of America want. This bill goes exactly the wrong direction.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. We're going to make it in America. When we do, America will make it. We will put forth, as Democrats, a jobs program. We're going to invest, we're going to grow, and we're going to build this economy. That's our promise. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Welch.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Okay, we are going to have our bullet session here. We'll start with Ms. Sutton from Ohio.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We're going to put people back to work, and one way we're going to do it is with a clean energy policy. We need a national security policy on energy. I know that part of that solution is going to come from Colorado where they are doing the research and where they are making some of this equipment and from middle America. And I suspect even Vermont will have a piece of this puzzle. Mr. Perlmutter, tell us about energy systems in Colorado.

Mr. GARAMENDI. And we're going to make it in America. America is going to make it. This is a great, strong country. Yesterday, I heard during the debate that we're broke. We're not broke at all. We've got a deficit problem; we can deal with that with some good policies when we put people to work. This is America, and we're going to make it in America. Let's look at that chart that Mr. Perlmutter has over there. Trade policies. We talked about that a little bit. Taxes. We're spending our tax money on buying equipment that's made overseas when it ought to be made in Ohio--the buses, the trains, the solar panels, and the wind turbines. How about doing those in Colorado? You have a plant there. Use our tax money to buy American-made equipment. Talk to me about research. Mr. Tonko, you come from one of the great early research centers of America.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's just get ourselves into a good discussion here. The great Midwest, Ohio, the industrial center of America, being rebuilt by Betty Sutton. I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Welch. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) has joined us, and directly in front of me is the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton). Let me turn to the gentleman from Colorado first.

Mr. GARAMENDI. They want to go to work. They want an invest, grow, and build policy--not a cut, slash, and burn policy, but an invest, grow, and build. They want to invest, as you say, in education. They want their kids to have an education. They want to build the infrastructure. And they want to see the economy grow. But I'll tell you what happens when you start cutting, slashing, and burning. Here's what happens: If you take a look at the American economy, beginning in December of 2009, just start right there, just say that's the equilibrium point--wasn't a good day at all in America, a lot of jobs were not available. But we've seen 2.8 million jobs created in the private sector, okay. Simultaneously, we have seen cut, slash, and burn at the Federal level, as the Republicans have taken control and put in their continuing resolutions and reduced the Federal budget--and at the State level, and we've seen 378,000 jobs lost in the public sector. These are police, firemen, teachers, people that are out there making sure that our food is safe, and so forth. So the reality is, we're seeing the government jobs go down. For every 100 government jobs that are cut, 30 private sector jobs are lost because those people depend upon the payroll from those government jobs. The Simpson Bowles deficit commission said it very clearly: This is a long-term problem. We need to solve the deficit over the long term. We cannot and should not solve it with immediate cuts because it will impair the recovery of America. And here's what's happening: We're seeing the growth in the private sector retarded as the public sector reduces. This is the effect of the cut, slash, and burn strategy that our Republican colleagues want to put forward. So what's going on in Vermont?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, the Republican--we heard it here over and over again, it was cut, balance--whatever. What I kept hearing is cut, slash, and burn because they're going to cut and slash critical programs for seniors. I think what Americans really, really want, they want a job.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We kept hearing from our Republican colleagues that what America needs is a cut, balance--how does that work?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Peter, as we stand here on the floor of this House debating an extraordinarily important moment in time about the direction we're going to go, this issue of paying our bills, we need to understand that what we're really talking about here is not tomorrow's bills; we're talking about expenditures that have been made over the years dating back to World War II and even before World War II, expenditures that have been made, votes by the majority of this House and by the Senate, signed by the President, America decided to spend the money. Earlier, I put up a chart here talking about where it came from--this House. And George W. Bush voted to reduce taxes, created a deficit, had to borrow money, voted to start and to carry out two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, borrowed money to do it. These are past expenditures. And here we are 12 days away from the default crisis where our Republican friends are using this moment in time where we're not really discussing tomorrow's expenditures; we're talking about yesterday's expenditures, and they're saying give us our way or else America defaults.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We've been joined by an individual from the great State of Vermont who has spoken many times on this floor about jobs and about what we need to do. Thank you for joining us. Share your thoughts.