John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I will ask for a vote, but I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I think he tossed it back to me, Mr. Speaker; so let me go ahead and finish this up. Mr. Sensenbrenner accurately talked about the way in which this particular resolution and the underlying bill on the patent bill violates the House rule that was written not more than 5\1/2\ months ago. Why would we want to violate the rules that we put in place to prevent excessive Federal spending? Doesn't make sense to me. So I agree with Mr. Sensenbrenner: send this thing back. It's a violation of the rule, and I would ask for a ruling on that from the Chair. The other point that I'd like to make is a similar point with regard to the offshore oil drilling bill which really does present a very serious problem for California. All of the offshore drilling in California--and it's very extensive. It's the second largest year for offshore drilling in the United States--is immediately off the southern California coast where we have very serious air pollution problems, some of the worst in the Nation. All of those offshore drilling platforms pollute, air pollution of many different kinds causing potential harm to the citizens of southern California. Those onshore winds bring those pollutants onto the shore and cause additional air pollution problems which then require, under this bill, that the local communities take additional action to reduce the pollutants that are generated onshore, creating a very serious economic problem. In addition, the bill requires that any legal issue raised has to be taken up in the district court here in Washington, D.C. By my calculation, that's nearly 3,000 miles away from where the problem exists, that is, southern California, placing an incredible burden upon them and an unfunded mandate that they have to then come out of their own budgets to come to Washington, D.C., to take up any legal issue that is raised, an unfunded mandate clearly in violation of the Rules of the House. And, therefore, a point of order is in order, and I would hope that the Speaker would so rule. There are many, many problems beyond that with regard to air pollution and the like. I will let those go. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. GARAMENDI. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for the unmet, unfunded mandates, although there are many in H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011; I raise the point of order because it is one of the very few vehicles we have, given the House rule, by which we can actually talk about what is in this bill, and there are plenty of problems in this bill. I also note that the resolution includes H.R. 1249, which talks about patents, because that also violates the House's CutGo rule. Let me speak to H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011, which is actually better noted as the ``bad lung, emphysema and cancer act of 2011.'' This bill gives offshore oil companies a pass to pollute by exempting the offshore drilling companies from applying the pollution controls to vessels, which account for up to 98 percent of the air pollution from offshore drilling. I suppose, if you're in the Gulf of Mexico and the wind is blowing towards the shore, you would care about this; but in California, the wind almost always blows onto the shore, and the offshore drilling and the additional pollution that would be allowed because of this is a serious problem for California. It poses a health risk. Smoke, fumes, dust, ash, black carbon--all of these things--blow onto the shore in southern California where we already have quite enough air pollution without this additional amount. Local communities do have a right--and should--even though this bill would tend to limit it, to go to the EPA. It cuts the review time in half, thereby denying local communities the full opportunity to express their concerns about the additional pollution. It eliminates third-party expert decision-making by the Environmental Appeals Board--finally, 20 years of the Environmental Appeals Board, created under the George W. Bush EPA, and it eliminates that. There are many, many problems here, and I would like to raise them all by including the patents in this. I would like to now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 316 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I strongly oppose the underlying bill, and I support the proposed amendment. Earlier today, we had a long discussion about one portion of the bill that dealt with Women, Infants and Children and the way in which the legislation inadequately funds the necessities for pregnant women, infants and children to lead healthy lives. We are now on to another issue that is extraordinarily important. In the '90s, the idea of deregulation took hold and was expanded throughout the 2000 to 2008 period, so much so that we had the financial meltdown. We had Wall Street bankers and hedge funds running wild, gambling on the future, and America was the great loser in that gamble. Over the last several years, we have seen the derivative market increase from a $30-$40 trillion notional value to an over $300 trillion notional value today. Every day across the Wall Street tickers--across the wires--and in the back rooms of the hedge funds and the big banks, $300 trillion of risk is traded back and forth, risk that is not backed up by assets but by bets that are made. It is the great crap shoot in the alley of Wall Street--$300 trillion. Where is the money? Where is the enforcer to make sure that the bet against Greece and the bet against the price of oil is going to be backed up? It's not there. It is the shell game of all shell games. There are no assets. I was the insurance commissioner, and we understood a couple of things very clearly: If an insurance company were going to make a bet that something would go wrong, then they had to have the asset to pay if that bet ever came to pass. That's not the case here. There is no regulation of this market. Understanding the need for this back in the 1930s, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was established to make sure that, if bets were made on the future price of grain, somebody would be able to pay if that bet had to be paid off. It worked okay until the great period of deregulation. Let's understand the definition of ``insanity.'' It's when you repeat what you did before and expect a different answer. This bill is asking us to, once again, repeat the deregulation of the derivative market by defunding, not providing adequate funding, for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. We are betting that things are going to work out, that this $300 trillion of notional value out there in the derivative market is somehow going to work out okay. We learned in 2007 and 2008 that it doesn't work out okay--literally collapsing the entire financial market of the world. Okay. Speculation? Let it rip. We did that once before. It is insanity to assume that this time it's going to work out okay. This amendment puts back in the necessary money for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to adequately regulate a huge market beyond the imagination of all of us. We need this money. We need the systems in place to make sure that this derivative market is adequately regulated so that we do not, once again, find this Nation bailing out or falling into a great recession and depression yet again.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to this bill. In his second inaugural address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid out, I think, a very good test for us. It was a test for this Nation at one of its most desperate periods. We, too, find ourselves in a difficult situation. We do have a big deficit, and we need to make some tough choices. And today as we debate this piece of legislation, we are indeed making choices and we are being tested. We're being tested about our values. We're being tested about what we think is important. Franklin Delano Roosevelt suggested this be the test: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' Ponder those words and apply those words to what we are debating and what we will soon vote for or against on this floor. The test of our progress, whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. We've discussed many times here in the last couple of hours the options that are given to us on tax policy, continuing to provide subsidies to the wealthiest industry in the world, the oil industry, not to the tune of a couple of billion but, when you add it all up, some $40 billion a year. Whether we continue to provide a tax break to the wealthiest in this Nation, those whose annual incomes are in the millions and, indeed, some who are even in the billions. We're making choices and we're being tested. That's one option that our Republican colleagues seem to want to present to us. The other option is what we on the Democratic side have been debating and asking for, and that is the second part of what Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, and that is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. I was on this floor not more than 3 hours ago with my granddaughter, 11 months old. And in the arms of mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers and parents across this Nation are children of that age who depend upon the Women, Infants, and Children program, which this Republican appropriation brought to this floor reduces by 10 percent. 350,000 children will not be able to have the food that they need, the care that they need to be able to be healthy, to be able to grow, and indeed in the future, to be able to pay, as we will today, one way or another, for the deficit that we have. A 10 percent reduction from last year, and is there anybody in this House that's prepared to argue somehow things are better out there and that a 10 percent reduction in the face of an increased number of women and children who need help, that that is a worthy choice for us to make? I think not. I think that this bill miserably fails the test that Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid out during the Great Depression. This does not provide for those who have too little. And it's not just in the Women, Infants, and Children program. Across the board, thousands, indeed, 48 million Americans become ill each year because of food-borne illnesses, and yet, in this budget, another 12 percent reduction from last year's funding for food safety programs at a time when we have a new food safety program to implement. 350,000 Americans wind up in the hospital as a result of food-borne illnesses, and the Republicans want to cut the money to provide the protection for Americans. It's about choices. It's about values. What do you value in this system? Yes, we have a deficit. Yes, we must deal with it. And yes, according to our Republican friends, we must take that food out of the children's mouths; we must make sure that people will not be able to be healthy. I don't understand.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let us understand that the underlying bill does not provide the necessary money for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to conduct the necessary oversight and regulations to adequately control the derivative market. Are we in agreement on that?

Mr. GARAMENDI. No, I don't think so because, I suspect, I'm pretty much out of time. Let us understand what is at stake here. It is the very nature of our economy to be able to survive in an era of rapid speculation that has driven up the price of oil. We know from Goldman Sachs and we know from the CEO of Exxon that some $20 of the $100-per-barrel oil price today is speculation. We can take a look at the other markets where speculation is also running rapid, and it is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that is specifically under Dodd-Frank required to rein in the excesses of this market, to end the speculation, to ultimately make a rational market out there for the futures market. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. If the gentlelady from Wyoming would recall the years past, she would recall what is known as the Senate filibuster. The graveyard of legislation that the Democrats put forth many, many times died in the Senate as a result of their filibuster. With regard to the issues of entitlements and this particular bill, we're talking here about the issue of how we care for those who have little. I'd be happy to debate with you on this floor or any other place the import of the stimulus program, and, in fact, most every economist argues that without the stimulus program we would have fallen into a great depression, not just a very serious recession. I'm sure the gentlewoman recalls those words.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Farr. Each piece of legislation that passes the House is really a reflection of our values. It speaks to our heart; it speaks to what we care about and what's important to us. This particular bill does that in a way that more than ever highlights values. Is it about children, about infants? Or is it about tax breaks for the very, very wealthy? Is it about safe food? Or tax breaks for oil companies and subsidies for oil companies? Is it about those people around the world that are hungry and the Food for Peace program that provides them with enough food to be able to survive and to live? Or is it about a continuation of very fat, unnecessary farm crop subsidies? It's about our values. It's about what we care about and what we think is important. And if there's anything that's important in life, it's food. It's the ability for our youngest children--I was on this floor not more than 2 hours ago with my granddaughter, 11 months old. Out there in America there are hundreds of thousands of young children that will not have the food that they need to be able to be healthy, will not be able to have the care they need. This is about our values. What does this bill say of our values? It says that those children are of little value. Is that what this is about? Is it about those people around the world that are starving that will not have the Food for Peace program? Is that the value of this Congress, that we cannot find the money, in this wealthiest of all nations, to provide the health care for our young children and the food for those around the world? What is it that we care about then? The very wealthy? About Wall Street? About the Commodity Futures Trading Commission not having the money that they need to regulate the programs that brought this country to its knees? What is it that we value? Big question. In this bill, obviously there's a great difference in what we value on our side and what this bill, brought to us by the Republican majority, values.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, America's intervention in Libya was initially based on the international community's ``Responsibility to Protect,'' a mandate agreed upon in the wake of the horrific Rwanda genocide. This important international doctrine calls for international intervention in a country where a government is unable or unwilling to protect its civilians, or is actively assaulting and killing inhabitants in that country. I agree with this doctrine and America's initial response to the Qadhafi threat to wipe out a large segment of the Libyan population. For 3 months, the U.S. and U.N. have engaged in military action. At this time, it is unclear if the mission is any longer one that fulfills the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, or if it has changed into a larger and/or different role. Given the continued military action and the lack of clarity of the U.S. mission's goal, I support House Resolution 292, which requires the administration to provide information on the American military, diplomatic, and humanitarian activities in Libya and seeks clarity on America's objective and strategy to achieve that goal.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. The distinguished chair of the Budget Committee spoke here a few minutes ago. He spoke about a moral obligation. An interesting definition of ``moral obligation'': An obligation to maintain the benefits that the insurance industry has; an obligation to maintain the subsidy that the American taxpayers give to the richest industry in this world, the oil industry, billions of dollars a year; an obligation to maintain the tax benefits to the wealthiest millionaires and billionaires in the world. Apparently, that's his definition of a moral obligation. We have a different definition on our side of the aisle. We have a definition on our side of the aisle that says it is the obligation of this society to provide medical care to our seniors. Our Republican colleagues see their moral obligation as terminating, ending, Medicare for all Americans who are not yet 55 years of age. Say it any way you want, but that's precisely what your budget does. It terminates Medicare. Is that your moral obligation? It's not ours on our side. Our side is to maintain the promise that when a senior in the United States becomes 65 years of age, they will have Medicare. Our good chairman comes and he says we're not cutting benefits for seniors. That's not true. In fact, you're cutting $700 billion out of the Medicaid--Medicaid--program, a program where two-thirds of the money goes to seniors who are in nursing homes.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. You say it's a moral obligation to cut $500 billion out of the health care bill? No way. That was money that came out of a subsidy to the insurance companies. And you say it's a moral obligation to leave the insurance companies alone so they can continue their rapaciousness against the people of America.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding. Will the assault on the well-being and the health care of America never end? Look over the last 5 months as to what has happened here. This bill takes it one more step. First is the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act with provisions in it to protect Americans from the rapacious appetite of the health insurance companies. Providing protections, Republicans would repeal that. Then the next step, which we saw just recently in the Republican budget, is the termination of Medicare for those who are under 55 years of age. What are they to do? Then, for those who are already on Medicare, there will be a significant, serious reduction in the Medicaid program, which provides essential funding for those seniors in nursing homes. Will the assault never end? Here in this bill, to protect the American homeland is a deeming of the Republican budget, which clearly terminates Medicare. Is it never going to end? Are we never going to step forward to actually put in place legislation that will assist Americans in getting the health care that they need? Step one, way back: Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act. Give limitless opportunities to the insurance companies to go after the men and women of this Nation--terminating Medicare. Here, coming back in a Homeland Security bill, slipping in by sleight of hand a repeal, once again, of health care. By the way, how is it going to be paid for? You're going to take it out of seniors' pockets, but you're not going to go after the oil companies? Come on now. The oil companies, the richest industry in the world, not paying their fair share and at the same time getting subsidies from the American taxpayers? It is time for that to end. There are ways to pay for the deficit and to bring it down. One of the ways not to do it is to go after seniors.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. A pretty basic thought for me is that it's our tax money; spend it on American-made equipment. The other piece of this is that these tax policies, these subsidies really work. And I want to give you an example. About a century ago, nearly a century ago America decided it needed a new energy source called oil. Over the years, subsidies were put in place to encourage investment in the oil industry and it worked, it worked phenomenally, created the best, most profitable industry in America, the petroleum industry; $970 billion--just slightly short of $1 trillion--of profit after taxes for the petroleum industry. And after a century of being subsidized by taxpayers, it's time for those to end. Let that industry help us with the deficit. End the subsidy for Big Oil. Return the money to the American Treasury. Bring down our deficit. There's a lot of money here. Depending on how you count it, it's somewhere between $2 billion, $3 billion, or $12 billion a year in subsidies for this industry. Let's end that. But unfortunately, we're involved in a debate here in Congress over whether we keep the tax subsidy for Big Oil and shift the burden of solving the deficit to seniors, an incredible policy put forth by our Republican colleagues that would force seniors to pay more for their medical insurance and literally terminate, end Medicare for everyone that's not yet 55 years of age. Terminate Medicare, shift the tax burden to them, and keep the tax subsidy for Big Oil. Hello? What's that all about? Big Oil doesn't need any more help. The deficit needs the help. Don't give the tax breaks to Big Oil. And for heaven sakes, don't terminate Medicare and force today's seniors and tomorrow's seniors to add the burden while keeping the benefit to Big Oil. This is about choices here. This is about choices. How do we use our tax money? For the future energy industries? Do we use our tax money to benefit Big Oil and force seniors and nursing homes to pay more? That's not out there 10 years from now, that's right now, because the Republican budget reduces Medicaid. The biggest single part of Medicare is to subsidize seniors and nursing homes. So seniors and nursing homes, their families would pay more while Big Oil is protected.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I was just listening to you discuss the situation with General Motors and Chrysler. That was a very courageous move that the Democratic Congress, together with President Obama, made when they made a decision to save the American automobile industry. Many people, particularly the Republicans here in this House, said don't do it, government shouldn't interfere with business, let the good go and the bad die. Well, this was several hundred thousand small businesses across the Nation that are supply chains that would have died. But the decision was made--a very courageous decision by the President--to support the foundation of one of the great industries in this world and one of the great industries in America. And so General Motors and Chrysler did receive a bailout. And here we are today with two companies back at it, making cars, making it in America, and by golly, we're going to ``Import from Detroit.'' You know, that was one of the greatest advertisements there ever was. But that's what this is all about, that's what this Make It in America agenda really is. There is another piece of this agenda that we really must pay attention to, and that is the future energy sources of America are going to be renewables, together with gas and nuclear, but these new industries need support in their early days. And this is a tax policy. There has been in place for about 7 or 8 years now a very robust tax policy to support the new renewable industries. The production tax credit. When you put a solar panel up on your roof and you draw down the energy, there is a tax credit available to homeowners. Those are very, very good. We need one more little twist to it. I saw this in my own district with those wind turbines down there. They were being made offshore, and yet our tax money was--appropriately--supporting the energy, but if you add to it one additional fact, and that is the tax policy that supports a wind turbine made in America so that our tax money uses American-made equipment. Another piece of legislation I have simply says, in the green technologies, wonderful, we need to do it, but let's make sure that those solar panels, those wind turbines are made in America.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I only want to take a second here. I notice one of our colleagues from Texas has joined us. She is a strong advocate of returning American manufacturing. I want to thank our colleague from the great State of Hawaii for bring to our attention the critical importance of transportation on the sea and in the American flag. Just for a moment, she caused in my mind a memory to return about an article that I read about where the ship is flagged. That is where it is licensed. I recall that I think it is from Florida, the Carnival Cruise lines, a billion-dollar operation with the ships actually flagged, I believe, in Panama. Interestingly, the tax that they pay to the U.S. Government, that is their corporate income tax--zero, nada, nothing--largely because they are able to avoid the American laws by flagging their ship offshore. We need these ships flagged in America for many reasons, and certainly the issue that she raised about national defense. Corporate tax policy, the R&D tax credit, another one of the bills that the Democratic Caucus has put forward to permanently put in place the research and development tax credits so that we can expand the genesis, the beginning of tomorrow's manufacturing, which actually comes through the research. I can go on and on about that. Representing California, we think research is really, really important. That is why we supported, without any Republican support, the STEM program, science and technology, which is research and also the education that goes with. One of the things that I found so disturbing was the effort by our Republican colleagues to back off the research, to reduce the research in America, when in fact that is where the future comes from.

Mr. GARAMENDI. It's always good to talk about your legislation. This is a great way to get things started. This is a great way to do it. It came from a fellow from the East Coast, the great State of Rhode Island, and it basically is a block grant program to jump-start the infrastructure programs all across the Nation. The thing that's really good about this is it's a competitive block grant. You're just not going to go out with earmarks because somebody has seniority, but it's going to be based on the quality of the program, the jobs that are brought, the necessity of moving people. I think it must have been a genius out of Rhode Island. Was it you, Mr. Cicilline, who came up with that idea?