[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5188-H5194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN JOBS AND HEALTH CARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the privilege. And thank
you, to my colleagues in the Republican Doctors Caucus, for a most
interesting but factually incorrect 45 minutes of debate here.
We really were going to spend this evening talking about jobs and
about the American Jobs Act and one of the great ``woulda, coulda,
shoulda's'' of our time. But we're going to hold that for just a few
moments, though, because there are a few things that really need to be
discussed from the last half-hour.
First of all, most of the discussion was about Medicaid. That's a
national program in which the Federal Government pays about 50
percent--it varies State to State, but roughly 50 percent of the cost
of providing medical services to the poor, women, and children in the
States.
Now the debate was most interesting in that the argument was that
there would be a lack of access and simultaneously an argument that
there were no cost controls. Yet if you were listening to our esteemed
colleagues, you would have heard them say, The doctors are not paid
enough.
I think if they're not paid enough, and the doctors want to get paid
more in order to provide services, then the costs are going to go up.
So the cost control argument here doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If
you want to keep the costs down, you need to improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of the system.
Certainly certain services within the Medicaid and Medi-Cal, as we
call it in California, are not paid sufficiently. Some other services
are paid more than enough. So you need to balance that up over time.
And all of these programs are run by the States. It's really the State
that decides what the reimbursement rate is going to be. The Federal
Government then matches the State's contribution.
So the argument really didn't make a whole lot of sense. And even
more so, in the Ryan Republican budget, which has passed this House
twice now, there is a significant reduction in the educational services
for doctors so that the money that we, all Americans, spend to educate
doctors--particularly in that part of the program, both the basic
education and then in the residency programs--the Ryan Republican
budget significantly reduces the amount of money available for
residency programs for family care practices, for the very basic
programs that we all want to access.
{time} 2000
For family care, for basic care, that money is reduced. You go, wait
a minute, that doesn't make any sense. If you are down here on the
floor arguing that there is an insufficient number of doctors and they
are not paid enough, then don't argue at the same time that it is too
expensive and there are not enough cost controls; and please don't
argue that there are not enough doctors because, in fact, the
Affordable Care Act expanded the number of residencies for very basic
care, for the family practice programs. I'm not quite sure I understand
what they are arguing.
In addition to that, access across this Nation for millions and
millions of people is provided in clinics. These are the
[[Page H5189]]
community clinics that a large population attend for their basic
services, and most of those are the Medi-Cal or Medicaid population and
the very poor that are not yet enrolled in what will be the expanded
ObamaCares--the ObamaCares program.
So what do the Republicans offer us?
The Ryan Republican budget would cut by more than a third the support
for the clinics, closing thousands of clinics across the Nation and in
my State where people get access. So please do not come down here on
the floor and argue for an hour or half an hour that access is being
delayed when on the one hand you are cutting the money for access.
That's what the Ryan Republican budget does. It cuts the money for
access by reducing the residencies and reducing access to clinics by
cutting by more than a third the money that is there to build up the
clinics, the community clinics where people get care.
I'm going to take a deep breath here because I don't want to get
wound up too tight about this issue, and I want to ask my colleague
from New York, Mr. Paul Tonko, to talk about the Medicare aspects of
this.
Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. We didn't hear too much about what would be
lost in their cuts or repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Representative
Garamendi, you are absolutely right, there is much that has been gained
by the American population, health consumers across this Nation, with
the efforts of the Affordable Care Act, to close the doughnut hole, to
make prescription drugs more affordable for our pharmaceutical
consumers out there, for seniors who require this medication, their
prescription drugs to stay well or to stay alive. Far too many were
balancing their household budget by reducing their intake of
prescriptions advised by their medical community. That is immoral. It's
unnecessary and has been addressed by the Affordable Care Act. So 5.3
million seniors today are drawing $3.7 billion in benefits. That is
something that could be taken away if the Republican majority in the
House of Representatives had its way.
Now, this is a wellness aspect. This is part of a formula that allows
people to be cured, to be healed, to be allowed to live with a quality
of life that then addresses their very needs. And so I think it's
necessary to point out what would be taken away from the benefits
already offered, and there are more to come. But as we know, they're
staged. They are rolled into the operations of reform over the next
several years. But suffice it to say, the screenings, the annual
checkup, flu shots that are made available without cost, no copayment,
no coinsurance, no deductible is required here. These are huge benefits
to every age demographic that are offered through the Affordable Care
Act.
And so we heard about adding to the cost curve of health care. We
have heard about repealing the Affordable Care Act. We have heard about
taking away the benefits that have just recently arrived at the door
steps of health consumers across this great Nation. And why would you
want to play politics with the very fabric of quality of life of the
people that we represent collectively by undoing progress? This is a
recurring theme. They want to undo Social Security that has a 76-year-
old history. They want to voucher out Medicare that came to us in the
mid-1960s that addressed the economic stability, the predictability of
senior households and the quality of life in those households. Why
would you want to take that progress away?
It is heart wrenching to listen to some of this insensitive, callous
dialogue on the House floor that really renders the public that we are
here to serve without benefits that have just recently arrived through
the success of the Affordable Care Act.
Representative Garamendi, it is something that I think needs to be
echoed out there from this House floor and shared with the constituents
of this great Nation in a way that allows them to better understand
what is part and parcel of the Affordable Care Act, a monumental piece
of success. Is it perfect? No. We aimed for perfection, we struck with
progress. But there is many, many a benefit that is part of the
Affordable Care Act, and we are witnessing an all-out attempt by the
Republican majority to turn that success into failure.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me pick up on that, Mr. Tonko. You are quite
correct, it is not just an attempt. There have been 33 votes on this
floor by the Republican majority to either terminate completely or to
eviscerate in part the Affordable Health Care Act. Now, what would be
eviscerated?
First of all, the Ryan Republican budget would terminate Medicare as
we know it and give to every American who is not yet 55 years of age a
coupon that basically says this coupon is worth 70 percent of the cost
of insurance. Go get your insurance when you become 65 from a private
insurance company. No longer would Medicare be available to all of
those people who will eventually be 65. And for those people who are 55
to 65, it makes it impossible for Medicare to go forward on a financial
basis because it takes away the younger people.
I heard something on the floor which I just said--wait a minute--some
statistic that was tossed out here just a few moments ago that more
people die on Medicare than die on regular insurance. Yes, Medicare is
for the elderly. Medicare is for the elderly. Yes, they do get medical
care but eventually they get old; and I will, too, be on Medicare, and
I will die on Medicare. And I am so grateful to have Medicare available
to me when I become 65 because I know that I have a solid insurance
program. I know that I'll be covered, and I know that my younger
brother and sister will be covered when they become 65. They will have
quality care. And guess what, they will die on Medicare. Yup, that
happens. You're on Medicare for the rest of your life. It may be for a
year. It may be for 30 years. But for whatever, you've got a guaranteed
benefit that is available to you.
And what do you lose if the Ryan Republican budget and the effort to
repeal Medicare is lost? Well, let's see. Nearly 13 million Americans
will benefit from $1.1 billion in rebates from their private insurance
companies that are presently overcharging them. Hmm. And 86 million
Americans, including 54 million Americans on private policies and 32
million Americans that are on Medicare, will lose their free preventive
services.
Now, you want to reduce the cost of health care, then you've got to
make sure that people stay healthy as long as possible. And how do you
do that? Blood pressure. You want to deal with blood pressure, okay, it
is very cheap, if you get your medicine. But you have to find out about
it, so you need that free checkup. Diabetes, stroke, all of those
things can be delayed and often prevented if you know it's coming. So
what are we talking, 32 million seniors will no longer have a free
checkup, preventive services.
In August, just a week from now, women will begin receiving free
coverage for comprehensive women's preventive services--pap smears,
breast cancer checkups. You want to repeal that? That's what the
Republicans have voted 33 times to do--repeal the free checkups for
women in America.
105 million Americans will have a lifetime limit once again. Today,
they do not have a limit.
{time} 2010
So if you're 30 years old, you have a private insurance policy and
you get cancer, you'll hit that lifetime limit immediately. Not under
the ObamaCares program. In that program, there are no lifetime limits,
and you will continue to receive the medical benefits.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi.
One of the things you talked about with the influence or the focus on
women's health care reminds me of the preexisting conditions that are
precluded now as a rationale for denying insurance. And ``preexisting''
might mean, in youth, asthma; in our senior population, emphysema or
cancer recovery or cancer struggle.
But it can also mean in a gender-related bias--being a woman. That is
used as a preexisting condition. Being a woman is a preexisting
condition. So the benefits to women, as you outlined in the direct
services, the screenings, the mammograms and the like, are a portion.
The other portion is just being born a woman can deny you insurance.
So, when you talk about the 30 cents on the dollar that the voucher
would carry for the Medicare recipient, and
[[Page H5190]]
they're asked to go shop, this is saying that compared to today's
standards, it's the senior digging much deeper into her pocket. It's
the senior digging into another pocket to be able to afford his
Medicare voucher portion. And that's unacceptable. That is playing to a
special interest.
That's what I believe the espoused virtue of this deny, this repeal,
is about. It's about playing to special interests that don't want to be
told that there's a transition here, that there's a new day in America
for health care consumers, and that the heart has been poured into this
to be more sensitive, to address a moral compass that this Nation has
always uniquely embraced, that we are a compassionate society, that we
are going to make a difference out there, and that we are solutions
bound.
That's what the Affordable Care Act was about: presenting a new
approach to health care, providing more freedom and opportunity to our
seniors and to our children.
If you're 26 and under, you can stay on your parents' policy. These
are the formulae for success that allow us to go forward with much more
dignity, much more success, cost containment, affordability, and
accessibility. These are the dynamics of reform.
Why would you repeal something here other than to respond to special
interests?
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.
Mr. TONKO. Well, if I might ask the gentleman from California if he
would yield.
I believe there's a whole lot of political posturing going on with
the Medicaid decision by States. We are hearing a lot of talk about,
well, we are not going to pay for that portion because, while it may be
100 percent in the near future, it may go to 90 percent into the long-
distance future, and they don't want to pay anything for the new
installments of the Medicaid plan.
Well, today we are paying. It's not like it's against an absolute
that costs nothing. If you have the poor uninsured, underinsured in any
given State, there's indigent care. There is bad debt and charity that
is addressed in ratepayer dollars for insurance coverage's sake because
that is going to be incorporated into the overall actuarial plan, or
you're paying it through taxpayer dollars and for a much more
inefficient system.
To have the poor, uninsured, and underinsured go to emergency rooms
visiting a different doctor team every time they visit that emergency
room, or perhaps a different emergency room, to not provide the stable,
standardized care, acceptable notions of how to provide a predictable
outcome, you're going to pay needlessly and wastefully. This is about
networking people to a system that provides a stability, a standard
that will enable them to have a clinic, have a contract that will cover
them and make certain that all of us are strengthened by it.
And guess what. The business community, we talk about
competitiveness. We talk about a sharp competitive edge for America's
business communities as they enter into the international sweepstakes
on winning contracts. That translates into providing jobs and
profitability for our business community. Well, part of their cost of
doing business is to have health care for their workers. Many want the
health care coverage for their workers but simply cannot afford it.
So the exchange opportunities that are part of the package of the
Affordable Care Act enables them to cut their cost. It's taking their
experience, their actuarial experience of 10, 15, 20 workers in that
small business and putting them in a pool of millions of workers.
{time} 2020
That enables them to shave the peaks and enables them to take those
catastrophic situations. One person in their plan of 10 impacted by
catastrophic situations can cause their premiums as a company and the
copayments of their workers to skyrocket. But if they're enabled to
join this pooled effort, it provides for a better outcome for
everybody.
So there is wisdom and thoughtfulness poured into the reform elements
of the Affordable Care Act. And it's done again with that American
heart, that spirit, that sense of compassion for the worker, the
sensitivity toward the employer, and putting together a package that
has everyone responded to in a way that speaks to a long-overdue bit of
success. The last industrialized nation, Representative Garamendi, to
go toward a guaranteed health plan.
[[Page H5191]]
So, long overdue. And now to taste success and have it pulled away
from the American health care consumers of this great Nation is a very
troubling notion.
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. TONKO. My colleague from California just indicated that there
would be a favorable deficit outcome because of the Affordable Care
Act.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly.
Mr. TONKO. Well, what else reduces the deficit? Putting people to
work. Putting people to work, the American Jobs Act. Plain and simple:
It's about addressing the deficit and providing for the dignity of work
and the enhancement of services that strengthens the fabric of our
communities, our States, our Nation. So, the American Jobs Act,
according to experts, is a phenomenal plan.
We've heard the Republicans say we have some 30 bills that are about
growing the economy and producing jobs when, in fact, when put under
the test, when reviewed by some very sound organizations out there and
professional economists and analysts, they said it would do precious
nothing. That it was not the formula. It's not what the doctor called
for, if we can stay on that health-care related theme. But the American
Jobs Act, well, listen to some of the experts.
The chief economist at Moody's Analytics--who, by the way, Mark
Zandi, was the former economic advisor for Senator John McCain--what
does he theorize? That anywhere from 1.9 million to 2 million jobs
would be the outcome of the American Jobs Act, something that not only
produces the jobs, but would reduce the unemployment rate by at least 1
percentage point. That's a major significant factor.
What also happens is that, when you produce those 2 million jobs,
you're addressing the GDP by at least 2 percentage points. Growth in
the GDP, reduction in the unemployment, reducing the deficit, putting
people to work, strengthening the economy, providing purchasing power
at a time when businesses are saying the best thing you can do: Get us
customers. A healthy economy, putting people into the work mode creates
customers. It creates purchasing power. It creates a strength in the
economy. Two million jobs.
How can we walk away from a proposal? Oh, I know why: Because there
were those who spoke before cameras reaching all of America saying
anything this President offers, we won't do; our goal is to make him a
one-term President. My friends, that is putting partisan politics--
petty, partisan politics ahead of the interests, the better interests
of the American public.
Where is that American spirit? Where is that sense of patriotism?
Where is that sense of responsibility, of leadership in this House and
in the U.S. Senate that needs to go forward with the American Jobs Act?
Representative Garamendi, I know we've been joined by another
colleague. It is just great to share this hour with you to talk about
the progress we can taste that would lift every community in this great
Nation.
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.
{time} 2030
Mr. Tonko.
Mr. TONKO. Yes, they are both significant bits of legislation, so
it's good to interlace the American Jobs Act and the Affordable Care
Act.
To the 280,000 teachers, I think it's very easy to state that the
human infrastructure in our school systems across this Nation are a
critical component to quality education, that personal relationship of
students to teacher, the exercise of self-discovery--who am I, what are
my gifts, what are my talents, what are my passions. That is exercised
in the classroom. That is a spirit that prevails. It's a magic that
happens in the classroom and that sense of self-discovery.
Part of our goal here is not only to enable these students to
understand who they are, to draw forth the soul of the individual; it's
to provide the opportunity for our workforce of the future.
[[Page H5192]]
That fourth-grader, hypothetically, that was impacted by class size
or the lack of a teacher for certain subject areas, that's something
that child will never gain again. What you lose in that given year is
lost throughout the development. And it is important for us to make
certain that every bit of opportunity, every bit of learning experience
is granted our children so that they understand where they can best
contribute to society, where their gifts can be utilized.
And it's part of that development of the workforce of the future, the
workforce of the present, training, retraining dollars, that are part
of the American Jobs Act, absolutely a critical piece of the
infrastructure.
And the tens of thousands--this chart will say retain thousands of
police officers and firefighters. We know it's tens of thousands across
this Nation. An element of public safety, a quality-of-life component,
making certain that our core communities have the given workforce of
firefighters, of police officers that will enable us to respond to
public safety measures.
These are a core bit of principle, along with veterans that would be
hired with benefits that are significant. That element was done under
pressure, under scrutiny, under growing public sentiment. But think of
what could happen if we did all of these and did even additional
services with our veterans who are returning home and are in need of
employment.
These are the factors, these are the dynamics that are introduced
through AJA, the American Jobs Act, that would allow for the deficit to
be addressed and at the same time to have services responded to,
essential services.
We've talked about the belt-tightening, addressing waste and
inefficiency and outmoded programs and fraud. And after we capture
those savings from that exercise, it's important, I believe, to slide
that into an investment zone so that the result is cut where you can,
so as to invest where we must.
The investment, absolutely critical. The investment in jobs, the
investment in teachers, firefighters, public safety elements, our
police officers, our veterans community, and items like an
infrastructure bank bill, an infrastructure that we'll talk about in
the remaining minutes of this Special Order.
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. TONKO. I think it's interesting too because we're talking about
the jobs created that impact the unemployment rate, that impact the
reduction of the deficit.
In contrast, the Ryan budget, which we've talked about many times,
the Republican plan for this House, that's been adopted by Republicans
that are in leadership and running for President, would, in contrast,
according to the Economic Policy Institute, the cuts in services would
result in a reduction of 1.3 million jobs in the first year and 2.8
million jobs in the second year.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me, 4.1 million jobs total.
Mr. TONKO. So when you contrast that, that cut in jobs, the cuts that
would be part of the Republican budget plan, adopted by this House,
would grow the deficit because if we're arguing that employment reduces
the deficit, unemployment, in contrast to the American Jobs Act, would
drive up the deficit. It's going back to the failed policies of the
past.
We've fought two wars that were never put on budget. We offered
trillions in tax cuts that we couldn't afford, and we avoided talking
about paying for the war. Did we think there wasn't going to be a
crash?
Did we think that that behavior wouldn't come with a price?
Of course it had to extract a price from the American society, and it
was the loss of 8.2 million jobs; it was the loss of as many as 800,000
jobs a month. It was about bringing America's economy to its knees and
draining trillions of dollars from households that trusted that their
investment with the private sector, with the financial industry was
going to return them lucrative dividends.
We saw the failure of those policies. Why would we go back down that
road, which seems to be what the Republican plan, the Republican
budget, is all about?
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.
{time} 2040
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. TONKO. Earlier, I think you had made mention of modernizing our
schools and that part of the American Jobs Act includes the investment
in the revitalizing of our schools, some 35,000 schools across this
Nation. The statistics are there. People document, historically, what
investments in refurbishing our schools have meant. For every $1
billion of investment, we can grow some 9,000 to 10,000 jobs. That's
the start of the story. So what we have here, the modernization of
schools, would create some 250,000 jobs. As I said, that's just the
start of the story.
What happens after that?
Maintenance costs and operating costs are reduced because you might
have energy efficiency embraced in that restructuring. You'll have
better, more efficient weather-type situations,
[[Page H5193]]
more comfortable situations for students in which to learn, which is
important.
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. TONKO. They're typical danger zones with ceilings falling and
poorly upheld infrastructure.
The jobs--the absolute jobs of a 250,000 count--would benefit, again,
the economy. These operating costs are reduced, and they theorize that
it could be in the neighborhood of $100,000 a year. Now, think of what
you can do locally with that. That might mean two teachers, or it might
mean 200 more computers, or it might mean 5,000 textbooks. It's a way
to invest by balancing those savings with the investment in children--
in our future and our present--because our children represent our
future and our present. It is a respect toward our children.
These are, I think, in keeping with the old American spirit--the
pioneer spirit--to enable us to dream bold dreams and to encourage our
youngsters to pursue these career paths and to develop, again, the
workforce of the new millennium, in which we are going to be asked to
compete in a global marketplace where there are investments going on
around the world. Now is not the time to cut our commitment to our
children and to our society and our competitiveness as a business
community. So it all comes together in a very structured sense, in a
very comprehensive plan.
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. TONKO. A couple of things come to mind legislatively.
What about investing, as the AJA does, in community colleges--the
campus of choice across this Nation? The associate degree is a very
important, valuable bit of material to have in one's hand. We are going
to rely heavily on those associate degrees, and community colleges need
our assistance. They are also there as the operational center of
training and retraining programs.
What about investments in technology? investments in research?
investments in alternative energy supplies that give us an opportunity
to grow independent?
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. TONKO. Absolutely.
I was energy chair at the State assembly for the last 15 of my 25
years in the legislature, but then went over as president and CEO with
NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
We made it our goal to advance research, to make certain that we would
incubate these ideas--these innovations, the cutting-edge technology--
that translate into jobs. Research equals jobs.
I have advanced legislation that would slide subsidies that are given
to the historically profit-rich in the tenure of capitalism--our goal
here is to not feed the profit margin of our oil companies--over to
cutting-edge technology, renewables, providing for consumer behavioral
transitioning that enables us to grow American independence in the
energy generation business.
Why are we sending tens and hundreds of billions of dollars over to
unfriendly nations to the United States for our dependency on fossil-
based fuels when, in fact, we can encourage renewables here and energy
efficiency, utilizing that as our fuel of choice to make certain that
we reduce demand that then reduces bills that then allows the
competitiveness of our businesses to be all the sharper? Those are the
sorts of things in which we want to invest, and it's the going forward
from that point.
How about our infrastructure bank bill that would leverage public and
private monies and that would stretch our opportunities to respond to
that deficient infrastructure of which you spoke? These are important
measures. This is the sort of cutting-edge opportunity--the investment,
the pioneer spirit again.
We can learn from our American story. There have been those golden
moments when we have hit bottom. There were those golden moments when
we were tremendously challenged and when we rose to the occasion in
tough times, primarily tough times, by responding with a tough agenda
that said, look, true grit here will get us to the finish line--and it
happened. It happened with Medicare. It happened with the Erie Canal,
of which we often speak.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Social Security.
Mr. TONKO. Again, Social Security. You're absolutely right.
The President lifted this Nation, and he made certain that all
families would have at least a foundation upon which they could grow,
upon which they could live in this society. It addressed the dignity
factor, which has made us unique as an American society: caring about
our fellow man, caring about the men and women of this great Nation in
a way that created an American society, a sense of community--we the
people--talking of us in a community sense, a neighborliness,
neighborhoods and societies speaking in a compassionate way, caring
about one another. That's when we're at our best.
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.
[[Page H5194]]
{time} 2050
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. TONKO. Yes, we're down to our last 4 minutes.
I always find these discussions to be interesting because there's all
this rhetoric out there about 30 bills that have been advanced by the
majority in the House and that it's the salvation that's going to
produce jobs and get America working again.
Major analysts have reviewed that legislative agenda and said it
doesn't do what they contend it will do. It doesn't produce the
results. We would love that to be the case, but it doesn't produce the
result. They said that we are really in need of legislation that will
advance jobs.
Tonight, this discussion about providing the tools, putting
additional tools into the kit that makes American industry competitive,
speaks to our humble beginnings. So many people travel to these shores.
Their journey was about the dream, a noble dream, an American Dream
that they were going to make it here. That was our humble beginning,
and we enabled people to experience the rags-to-riches scenario. We
allowed for generations to continue to grow and prosper and build upon
the success that preceded them.
Today, sadly, our middle class is weakening household income-wise.
The next generation may be the first to go backward. The President is
trying to move us forward, with great resistance in this House to
reject progressive policies.
We say: Let's build upon the success of the past. Let's reach to
those shining moments when we were challenged as a nation and produce
the best outcomes. That can happen again here if we open up to what's
best for America and not resort to petty partisan politics that want to
deny a Presidency, that want to deny opposition that comes forward with
constructive qualities to do it in a better way, to build the
consensus.
We need to move forward on behalf of the nobleness of the American
Dream. With heart and soul poured into the efforts here in this House,
we can achieve and grow that middle class, purchasing power enhanced
for the middle class, opportunities for our middle class. A strong
middle class means a strong America. Let's go forward.
Representative Garamendi, thank you for leading us in this hour.
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.
____________________