John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. If you would yield, the infrastructure bank is a great idea, and it is one which allows us to build immediately. And over time, as those projects pay off, they repay the loans. It is a very, very wise investment to create an infrastructure bank. Other countries have it. And in the United States, there are certain localities and States that also have it. Another piece of legislation dealing with infrastructure actually is a bill that I put together that says, we spend a lot of money. It's part of the excise tax money that goes out to build highways, to pay for buses, trains, light rails and the like. And my bill is pretty simple. It's our tax money. Use that tax money to buy American-made equipment. Why would we send our tax money off to China to buy a Chinese bus? Hey, we make great buses. We make a great bus in the Bay Area. The GILLIG Corporation makes a bus that is a superb bus. And we need to spend our taxpayer money buying American-made buses, trains, light rails and the like. We're going to spend billions. Is the money going to be spent in America or is the money going to be spent overseas? My legislation says buy American-made equipment. Pretty simple. After all, it's our tax money. One of several bills--the infrastructure bank and this particular bill--in building the American infrastructure. I notice one of our colleagues here from the State of Hawaii.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Cicilline, it does not surprise me at all that you have a passion for this issue. You come from a part of the United States that really started the industrial revolution, the Northeast, and your State in particular, the industrial revolution started there. And over the years it gave great strength to this Nation, and it was the manufacturing that provided the economic underpinnings for the growth of the American economy. Unfortunately, your part of the State, perhaps for a variety of reasons, some of them having to do with national policies, began to lose its industrial base. But with your representation and your passion for this issue, I have absolutely no doubt that once again the Northeast will find the resiliency and the right national policies to rebuild the manufacturing base there and across the rest of the Nation. We are already beginning to see it as a result of the stimulus program, and some of the specific laws that were built into that program are now rebuilding the manufacturing base in the Midwest. Specifically, a requirement that for the high-speed rail systems and the rebuilding of the American intercity rail programs, those goods, trains, rails, electronic systems, control systems, have to be built in America. And guess what? International companies are establishing, reestablishing, and building manufacturing facilities in America to take advantage of that money that was in the stimulus bill. Simple, little things, not an increase, but rather using our Federal money wisely. We can do it. We must do it. We will make it in America once again, and it will be the great American manufacturing sector. And when we do this, America will make it. There has been a lot of discussion here on the floor today about deficits. What are we going to do about the deficits? Are we going to raise the debt limit? Of course we're going to raise the debt limit. We have to. America stands behind its debts. We will pay. It will engender a debate. Fine. Let's make this part of the debate. Let's make this part of the debate. In dealing with America's deficit, are we willing to put in place the policies that will rebuild the American manufacturing sector? And I know it is the Democratic agenda to do just that, that we will rebuild the American manufacturing sector. And in doing so, we will rebuild the American economy and provide one of the critical bricks in solving the deficit problem. Without a growing economy, without a strong middle class, the deficit will never be solved. So we ought to do it. How can we do it? Well, how about our legislative agenda? Why don't you start us off on a couple of the bills and see where it takes us?

Mr. GARAMENDI. If anyone understands the history and the importance of manufacturing, it's the gentleman from Rhode Island. The Black River down through Rhode Island was the very first place that America started its manufacturing base, using water as a source. And today, as we look to the future of American manufacturing, we do have to deal with the energy issues. And we probably should take a full night here and just talk about how the American economy can benefit from a new energy strategy. Tax policies we've discussed here a little bit. One of the things we didn't discuss here on tax policy was we put forth a bill last year that took away $12 billion of subsidies that American corporations had when they shipped jobs offshore. I have no idea how such an incredibly stupid policy got into the Tax Code, but it did. It's gone. It was a Democrat agenda to eliminate those tax subsidies that shipped jobs offshore. Unfortunately, not one Republican joined us in eliminating that crazy tax subsidy. That money is now back to help deal with the deficit. Labor policies, education--another full night can be taken on just education. We talked a little bit about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the STEM programs. But it's much, much more. It's the reeducation of our workforce. Intellectual property, research, how you protect that, critically important. We did have a good discussion about infrastructure. This is our agenda. This is the American agenda. This is the agenda about the future. And it is so much an important part of dealing with the deficit. There is not an economist out there that tells us we can actually deal with the deficit unless we get people back to work. And the people that we want to get back to work is American middle class. The American middle class needs to be rebuilt along with our manufacturing base, and we can do it with the set of policies that we're putting forth here. We ask for our Republican colleagues to join us on these smart pieces of legislation. Mr. Cicilline, this is your night. You've led us in this. I yield back my remaining time for your closure.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We heard a debate here earlier, and while we're on Make It in America, this kind of moves us a little bit away, but they were saying earlier that in the health care reform, the Affordable Care Act, money was taken out of Medicare. Not true. Money was taken out of the pockets of the insurance industry who were given, back in the Bush era, an additional subsidy. It terminated a subsidy of $500 million that the insurance companies had to participate in Medicare. Why in the world we would subsidize the health insurance companies who this year are showing record profits, I don't know, but the Republicans perhaps want to keep that subsidy there for the health insurance companies just as they want to keep a subsidy there for Big Oil, rather than taking care of our seniors, shifting the subsidies to tomorrow's energy sources. These are policy choices. And the policy choice of the Democratic Party is to protect seniors, to make sure that Medicare is there today, tomorrow, and forevermore. Let me be very clear about this. If you want to have a fight on this floor, then you fight with us over Medicare. We will not tolerate the termination of Medicare, period. And we don't want to shift costs to seniors. We want to make sure that those companies that are profitable, the oil industry, pays its fair share and terminate the subsidies to them.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I voice my strong opposition to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540. Unfortunately during a busy legislative day, I missed the roll call for this important bill, which passed the House of Representatives today. Had I been present on the House Floor, I would have cast a ``no'' vote on the legislation.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think the gentleman from Texas missed the point entirely. It is not about mileage. It is about giving local contractors the opportunity. The offer I made to my colleagues on the right, my Republican colleagues, is put this amendment forward so that we have the opportunity in this legislation to work our way through this. We all understand there is a problem. We all want our local contractors, whatever that means, to have an opportunity at these jobs. There is a problem. The large national contractors are taking it all. They are coming into our communities and walking away with all of it. That's a problem for all of us who represent any military facility in this Nation. So let's move forward with this, put this amendment in, and then we will work it out. Maybe mileage isn't the best way. Local, maybe that needs to be defined. Forty percent, 39 percent, we can pick a number, or maybe no number at all. But we do know there is a problem, and we ought to be addressing it in this legislation this year. I would ask for your support. If you care about small businesses, then don't wait another year to solve the problem. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am delighted to hear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree there is a problem. I would suggest to them that we put this amendment into the bill so that we have the opportunity in the weeks ahead, as this bill matures in the two Houses and in the conference committee, that we deal with it. There is nothing special about 60 or 61 miles, but there is certainly something special about providing local contractors with the opportunity. As I understand, Fort Hood is a very, very big facility. Perhaps you would like 63\1/4\ miles from the outside edge of the perimeter of the facility. Whatever. The problem remains. I would really urge my colleagues to allow this amendment to go forward so that there is a basis for negotiations in this legislation. Otherwise, we are going to wait a year before we will be able to come back to deal with this. And in that period of time, thousands upon thousands of small businesses will be excluded. There is a problem. We know there is a problem. Move this amendment along, and then spend the next month, 2 months until this bill matures, and then we can work out the appropriate language. But let's all recognize there is a problem and we need to get to it. So let's move the bill. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am shocked, absolutely shocked that my Republican friend isn't standing firm for small businesses in their communities. Would you like 61 or 60,000 miles? Whatever it is, we want the small contractors to have a shot at it. Be happy to amend to whatever mileage you would like. I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. This is about local jobs for local companies. Many of us have in our districts military facilities of large and small size. All too often those facilities and the work done on those facilities, performed by contractors, often national contractors, totally ignores and provides little or no opportunity for local subcontractors. This amendment would simply require that for prime contractors on military installations across this Nation they would be required to allow 40 percent of their contracts, by dollar value, to be available for local subcontractors. Not a bad idea, it seems to me. I know that, in my area of Travis Air Force Base in Solano County, there are constant--constant--complaints from local contractors that the big boys come in, hog all the work, and leave nothing behind except a few more burgers bought at McDonald's. Not good enough. This amendment deals with that issue by providing local contractors, often Republican contractors, the opportunity to have work in their communities, and ``local'' is defined as within 60 miles of the base. So I ask for an aye vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for the unfunded and unmet mandates, although there are many in this bill. I raise this point of order because we have one of the very few opportunities to actually talk about one of the provisions in the underlying bill. Thus far, this House has been denied the opportunity to properly debate this provision, and I believe we must illuminate what it actually does. Section 1034 of this bill provides an unlimited opportunity for the administrative branch of government, the President, and the Secretary of Defense, to engage in war virtually anywhere, any place, anytime on this planet. That is an unbelievably broad opportunity that this House should never give to any President at any time. There are three very specific problems that the authorization for the use of military force has, and I want to make sure that we understand what those problems are. This provision is particularly dangerous because it does undermine the Constitution. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Yet this authorization to use military force passes to the President the opportunity to engage in war anywhere anytime, really, without any particular reservations. This thing was snuck into the Defense Authorization Act. No debate in committee. And had I not somehow been going through the bill and thumbing through and finding page 133 of the legislation, it would never have been discussed in committee. But some time near 12 o'clock, or actually after 12 o'clock, I was able to present an amendment in the committee to strike this section of the bill. That amendment did not pass the committee, and hopefully it will be before the floor as we discuss the entire legislation. So let me begin the discussion now. We ought not expand the executive authority to go to war. First of all, this particular section, 1034, is harmful because of three reasons: one, it's unlimited--anywhere, any place, anytime; second, it is very unclear as to who we're going to go to war against; and, third, it's not necessary. First, section 1034 is unlimited. There's no geographic limitation in section 1034. All that needs to be found by the President or the Secretary of Defense is there is a terrorist out there somehow associated with the Taliban or al Qaeda. And we know that al Qaeda is spread throughout the world, including the United States. So the entire globe is the subject of this authorization to use military force. And it's not just force against an individual terrorist or an individual terrorist organization. It's force against any nation that harbors, supports, or provides some sort of aid to a terrorist organization. What kind of a nation would that be? Well, certainly we would consider Yemen, Somalia, maybe even Pakistan. And we did successfully go after Pakistan--not Pakistan, but after bin Laden who happened to be hiding in Pakistan. But the point here is unlimited authorization to go anywhere in the globe to go after terrorists of any color, any stripe, anywhere. I don't suppose we intend to declare war against ourselves, so maybe America is not included in this. Secondly, there's no temporal limit to this, meaning this authorization goes on forever. It's not limited in time. It can go for 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, one century or a millennium. We must never allow any President to have that unlimited opportunity to wage war on behalf of this Nation. Third, this resolution and this section is unclear. It's unclear in several ways. What is an ``associated force''? What's the ``Taliban''? What is ``al Qaeda''? We know al Qaeda as it existed in Afghanistan. We have a sense of what al Qaeda is in Pakistan. But now we have al Qaeda in the Saudi Arabia Peninsula, we probably have al Qaeda in Somalia and, certainly, according to the FBI, we have al Qaeda in the United States. So this particular clause, associated forces, is one that we should never allow to go into law and allow any President over any time in the future to use it to undertake a war somewhere. Finally, the provision is unnecessary. The administration is not asking for additional power. We have a case in point. The administration didn't need additional power to go into Pakistan to get bin Laden. The administration doesn't need additional power to go to Yemen to deal with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, nor did the administration need power way back in the 1990s when President Clinton launched Tomahawk missiles into Afghanistan to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan at that time. The President, the administration, is not asking for this authority. They claim and the courts have provided them with sufficient authority to carry out the mission against terrorism as we know it today. So in conclusion, I want to raise this issue to this House, to the Senate, and to the American public that in the Defense authorization there is an unlimited opportunity for any President now and in the future to wage war anywhere in the world against any nation that has a terrorist in that nation. That we should never do. We should aggressively maintain our authority under the Constitution to declare war and to authorize the use of military force. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 276 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. This resolution contains a waiver of all points of order, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. There is much in this bill to recommend, particularly the way in which it deals with the men and women that are in arms, the support that they need, the benefits that they require, and the care that they require following their missions. However, there is in this bill a missed opportunity, and I must therefore oppose the bill, the opportunity to change the direction of the war in Afghanistan, a war that seems without end, and a war that seems to be perpetual. A successful raid and the successful taking of bin Laden is an opportunity to pivot, and we are missing that opportunity in this bill, and continuing to spend over $100 billion on that war in Afghanistan. Also in this bill is section 1034, the continued authorization for the use of force. That too must be eliminated. For those reasons, I oppose this legislation.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in opposition to the underlying bill and the amendment. You just heard a very cogent argument. I don't understand why we ought to have ignorant doctors. It doesn't make any sense to me. Abortions are sometimes necessary for saving the life of a pregnant woman. And to have a medical system in which the doctors don't know about that procedure is really stupid. I won't say this amendment is that, but it's really not wise to have ignorant physicians. And it's really not wise not to have physicians at all. What in the world are we thinking here? What's the purpose of this amendment and this particular resolution? To deny American men, women, and children the opportunity to go to a doctor? We know all across this Nation that there is a shortage of primary care physicians. In most every community of California, there is a shortage of primary care physicians. Plenty of dermatologists, but not primary care physicians. So what are we going to do here? Eliminate the funding to train primary care physicians. Now, that in itself is bad enough. But this is just one piece of a much larger plan to dismantle health care in America. The repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act will increase the cost of medical services all across this Nation and particularly increase the cost to government. Not my projection. The independent Congressional Budget Office said clearly that the Affordable Health Care Act will reduce the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. So repeal it. Increase the deficit. Huh? Is that what this is all about? I don't get it guys and women. Makes no sense to me. And now in your budget, the Republicans go after Medicare and terminate Medicare for every American who is not yet over 55 years of age? Terminate it. And turn it over to the rapacious, greedy, profit- before-people health insurance industry, an industry that I know a great deal about. I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years, and I know those characters. It is about profit. It's not about caring for people. And when you say the government shouldn't make decisions, the government does not make decisions in Medicare. The physicians make decisions. But if you turn Medicare over to the insurance companies, it will be the insurance companies that make decisions about medical services. And by the way, you also voted to repeal those sections of the Affordable Health Care Act that protect all of us from the rapaciousness of the health insurance industry. Eliminating a law which eliminates such things as preexisting conditions, age, sex discrimination, and the rest. So you repeal that and give back to the insurance companies the opportunity to discriminate. And now you want to throw tomorrow's seniors into that same pool of sharks. I don't get it. It makes no sense whatsoever. It perhaps is the worst idea I've heard in the 35 years I have been involved in public health and in public policy. It makes no sense whatsoever. And this bill on top of it? Come on. We're not going to train primary care physicians? What in the world are you thinking? I don't get it. I don't get the whole strategy. It is a strategy that will put America's health at risk. It is a strategy that will deny benefits. It is a strategy that will provide us, with this latest amendment, doctors that are ignorant about basic women's health. And it is a strategy that will deny us the necessary primary care physicians. What in the world are my Republican colleagues doing here about the deficit? Come on now. What you're doing is going to increase the deficit. You're going to increase the deficit. If there are not primary care physicians, then you'll go to the emergency room. And everybody knows that the emergency room is more expensive than a doctor's office. What are you doing? I don't get it, guys. I don't understand. You're worried about the deficit; yet you take action that increases the deficit? It makes no sense to me. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I'll take a lightning minute here. It really comes down to a question of: Where do you stand? Who do you stand for? It's very, very clear. If there's ever a dichotomy and a clear opportunity to see where you stand, it is in the Republican budget. Let's be very clear. It terminates Medicare; gives seniors a voucher that is worth perhaps half of the cost of insurance; takes $700 billion out of Medicaid. And that is, as you said, the long-term care for seniors in nursing homes. And it continues the tax cuts for people whose income is millions, billions; continues the tax subsidies for Big Oil--$4 billion, $5 billion a year to companies that have made over a trillion dollars in the last decade. And just in this quarter, Exxon, $10.7 billion; Oxy, $1.6 billion; Conoco, $2.1 billion. This is one quarter, 3 months of earnings. Billions and billions of dollars. And then they want to continue. Where do you stand? Do you stand for the working men and women, the seniors, those people that need to be able to get health care, or do you stand for the very, very rich and the big oil companies? The Republicans have made it clear. There's a difference here between where we stand as Democrats and where they stand as Republicans.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you for yielding. If you add to that destruction, the termination of Medicare, the way in which the Republicans have already voted for on this floor to end the Health Care Reform Act, which regulated the insurance companies and said the insurance companies could no longer discriminate based upon preexisting conditions, discriminate based upon age and whether you are a woman or a man, all of those protections that are in the health care reform law would be terminated. So not only are you taking the Medicare program and ending it, giving the seniors a voucher that is perhaps half of the cost of a health insurance policy, you are eliminating the restrictions that were placed on the insurance companies for discriminating against people that have preexisting conditions. So you've literally taken these people and thrown them to the sharks. On top of that, the rest of the proposal was to take the Medicaid program, which is health insurance for impoverished children, and give a block grant to the State that's worth about half of the cost, a $700 billion cut out of that program for children's health care, and you say, What's this? This is not us. This is not America. These are harsh, cruel programs that are being foisted upon the American citizens.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. And indeed we will. Over the weeks and months ahead, we are going to talk about the Make It in America agenda, the legislation that has been introduced by the Democratic Caucus here in the House of Representatives. There are about 25 pieces of legislation, ranging from the ones that we talked about here, using our tax money when we buy solar equipment, make sure it is made in America. A bus, if you are going to use our tax money, make sure where it is made. Innovation, the innovation economy, all of those things. This is legislation that we have, infrastructure financing and all the rest. We are going to talk about it piece by piece. I thank my colleagues for joining us. I have the sense that behind me we are about to be gaveled that we are out of time. I want to thank the American public for listening to the Make It in America agenda.

Mr. GARAMENDI. As a great example, your colleague next to you there has a piece of legislation that calls for fairness in the financial markets, the value of the dollar versus the value of the Chinese yuan. Mr. Ryan, you have put it out there. You say it has to be fair. Wrap it for us.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I look up and find another colleague here. We have just a few moments left.

Mr. GARAMENDI. It is actually already there. It is called advanced biofuels, algae-based fuels, everything from cosmetic oils to fuel for the Navy ships. So we can do these things. But, again, it is how we deploy our resources. We have about 5 minutes, and we are going to do a lightning round between the three of us. I am going to turn to Mr. Tonko.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much for that. You just reminded me of last night at 2:30 in the morning, the House Armed Services Committee completed the markup that is moving out of committee, the National Defense Act. We do it every year. Seven hundred billion dollars. A study done by one of the think tanks came up with the number that America spends about 17 percent of its total defense budget protecting the flow of oil out of the Middle East. So you can add that to the deficit. That is over $100 billion a year that we spend of our tax money to protect the flow of oil, not only for us, but for the rest of the world. We need to build a domestic energy system not based on carbon-based fuels, but rather the future energy, all of the clean green technologies, nuclear and others, that will provide us with the energy security we need. In doing so, each and every one of those, if we spend our tax dollars on buying American-made systems, will come back, just as you say, and build our communities stronger along the way.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We are talking about what America thinks was yesterday, and you are telling me it's the fastest growing?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Name those places again.