[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 163 (Tuesday, December 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6863-H6869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         PROTECTING MEDICARE AND REBUILDING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE

  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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the subject of tonight's Special 
Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Before I get into the issues that I want to talk 
about, I want to also reach out to Jay. Since nobody from this side of 
the aisle has yet spoken, I'd like to do so.
  About 3 years ago, I started doing Special Order hours, and always 
Jay would come up to me during the floor session and ask me what we had 
planned and share with me the Republican plans for the Special Order 
hour. And we'd work it out: Will you take the full hour, yes or no? 
Probably 40 minutes, maybe less. That was so we would have a smooth 
transition from the Republican Special Order hour or the other way 
around, Democrat to Republican. It has been a great pleasure to work 
with you, Jay. You do a great job here.
  I could echo everything that's been said, but I really don't know all 
of the intricacies on your side. I do know that when they involve our 
side of the aisle, you're there to make it a smooth transition and to 
make it work. It was a pleasure working with you, and I'll miss you 
along with, I'm sure, every other Member of this House. So Godspeed and 
best wishes to you in your retirement.
  Thank you very much, Jay.
  Many things have happened over the last several days. We've got the 
fiscal cliff, but we've also had not only the retirement of very 
special people in the lives of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate, but also the recent death of Senator Inouye, which marks the 
passage of the generation that fought in World War II.
  I've been asked, and I'll gladly yield whatever time our colleague, 
Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii, would like to take in memory of an 
extraordinary Senator.
  I had the pleasure of working with him in the mid-90s when I was the 
Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. We were working on 
the Native Hawaiian lands issues. He was a remarkable individual, one 
that not only understood the intricacies of that very complex 
situation, but also had enormous passion for the Native Hawaiians.
  So tonight I yield whatever time she might want to take to Colleen 
Hanabusa, our colleague from the great State of Hawaii.


                 In Memory of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

  Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary person who has 
shaped and defined what my home State, Hawaii, is today, a State which 
is unique and as special as the person I honor.
  The person I rise to honor is Daniel K. Inouye, a person who cannot 
be described by a single adjective, a person whose accomplishments 
would cause you to pause and ask, Is this one person? Is this one man? 
This is a person who was awarded the greatest honor anyone who serves 
in the military can achieve, the Congressional Medal of Honor.
  But it was an honor about 55 years late from a country that 
questioned his loyalty due to the fact that he was an American of 
Japanese ancestry; a person who could not get a haircut after being 
severely wounded and giving his arm in battle because he looked like 
the enemy; a person who insisted that instead of being bitter, he would 
dedicate his life to doing all he can to right social inequities and 
discrimination of all kinds. To do this, he became a part of the 
Democratic revolution that took control of Hawaii's territorial 
legislature. Remember, back then, Hawaii was run by the plantation 
bosses, and it was the Democratic revolution that shifted the power 
base.
  He is also a person who served his territorial government, his State, 
and his Nation for a period of time just short of 60 years; a person 
who came to Congress and was recognized by his peers to serve and chair 
various committees, the most recent the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, along with being President pro tempore and on historic 
investigation committees like Watergate and Iran Contra. Imagine, Mr. 
Speaker, what he has seen. Imagine more so what brilliance and skills 
he possessed to serve so effectively for all these years. He has left 
such a mark on Hawaii.
  Hawaii is the home of the Pacific Command. There is no question in my 
mind that the pivot to Asia-Pacific is possible because of his vision, 
a vision shared by the President; a vision which is made possible by 
the Senator's strong commitment to entities such as the East-West 
Center and his placement of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in 
Hawaii so that the whole Pacific benefits.
  Hawaii's military importance goes without saying, as the investments 
made to Pearl Harbor, the Pacific Missile Range Facility, PACOM, 
Schofield, Hickam, Kaneohe Marine Corps, Pohakuloa, just to name a few, 
were all part of his plan on how to stabilize Hawaii's economy and this 
Nation and the world.
  The Senator recognized that the future for Hawaii is getting off our 
dependence on fossil fuels, a conversation, by the way, that we had at 
the last delegation meeting which he chaired where he made it very 
clear that this was his priority. He was, as you can expect, already 
ahead of everyone because he had been funding research and development 
in this area for years.
  He also knew that education was critical to our success and insisted 
on ensuring that the University of Hawaii be the land, sea, and space 
grant institution that it is--one of the few institutions that has all 
three designations.

                              {time}  2030

  But the person I will miss the most is the man who always said ``Just 
call me Dan'' to whomever he met. It didn't matter who it was. It was 
``just call me Dan''--the person who shared stories about the values he 
was raised with, which I think was his way of giving us a glimpse of 
what he was made of.
  At his 88th birthday party--88 is a very significant birthday, 
especially among the Japanese community--he shared the story of his 
father and a carp--yes, the fish, carp. His father told him to be like 
a carp, fighting as hard as you can as the carp did, but when it was 
time to die, you died with dignity.
  The Senator did exactly that, but then you would expect nothing less 
from the person of whom no one word can describe, a person who did not 
want buildings named after him. He just wanted to be remembered as 
someone who represented the people of Hawaii honestly and to the best 
of his ability. When asked for his assessment of how he did, he just 
basically said, ``I think I did okay.''
  Senator, if what you did is just ``okay,'' the rest of us are failing 
because not one of us can measure up to your standard of okay.
  Mr. Speaker, you have no idea how we in Hawaii are so anxious because 
we do not know how to make up for our loss. We will not have him, 
Senator Inouye, to rely upon to make things okay. The Senator said 
``aloha'' as his last word.
  We can only say ``aloha'' and ``mahalo'' to you, Senator, and to 
Irene, Kenny, and Maggie for sharing you with us.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The eulogy that was just given is most appropriate. 
There are men and women of extraordinary talent that have served in 
this Capitol, and certainly, Senator Inouye fits that. There is also a 
fiscal cliff out there, and I know the Senator was

[[Page H6864]]

working diligently on that before his last days. Here, too, in the 
House of Representatives, we also should be working diligently on that.
  It seems as though we are not making as much progress as we should. 
We have about 10 days now. Actually, I guess it's 12, 13 days. We go to 
January 3, so it's 16 days before the fiscal cliff actually occurs. 
Between now and then, we have a great challenge. We have the well-being 
of this Nation, the world's strongest and, in many, many ways, the 
world's greatest Nation. It doesn't really hang in the balance, but its 
well-being in the years ahead will be largely determined by how well we 
address this challenge of the fiscal cliff. It's the deficit. Will we 
be able to put in place a solid plan that over the course of, perhaps, 
a decade addresses the deficit and brings it under control and begins 
to reduce it? I know we can. We've done it before.
  We did it in the 1990s when President Clinton made a proposal that 
would raise taxes and reduce expenditures. It led during that period of 
time to a surplus, a surplus that was dramatically altered when the 
George W. Bush administration came in and started two wars and enormous 
tax cuts simultaneously, and it led to a deficit that was 
extraordinarily increased as the Great Recession took place in 2008. We 
need to turn that around.
  President Obama has made a very solid set of proposals during the 
course of the campaign, one in which taxes for a couple would go up 
over $250,000 of adjusted gross income; all of their income below that 
would continue to have the tax reduction. He also made very substantial 
proposals to reduce expenditures. Those are now being negotiated in a 
back-and-forth between Speaker Boehner and the President. He also made 
some very important proposals to grow the economy--significant 
investments in infrastructure, significant investments in research, in 
education, in the fundamental investments that create ongoing growth in 
the economy.
  I'm not sure how this is going to work out, but here on the 
Democratic side of the aisle we have some principles that we want to 
lay down, and tonight we will discuss those principles. We've done this 
before--we've talked about Medicare, we've talked about Social 
Security, we've talked about laying down the investments.
  Joining me tonight will be my colleagues from around this Nation. I 
want to start with Jason Altmire, who has talked to these issues many 
times and who wants to present to us our view as Democrats.
  Jason, if you will take the floor and speak to these issues.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership 
on these issues and for his continued leadership in bringing these 
discussions to the American people. I also look forward to hearing my 
friend from New York in what he has to say.
  We have talked time and again about the importance of what we are 
trying to accomplish in this House with regard to protecting the 
Medicare program. I represent a district, as the gentleman well knows, 
that has 135,000 Medicare beneficiaries. It has, actually, the fourth-
most Medicare beneficiaries of any congressional district in the 
country. So the people I represent have a very strong interest, as does 
every Member of this House, in making sure that Medicare is preserved, 
that it's protected, that it's strengthened, and that it is always 
going to be there, not just for those 135,000 beneficiaries who 
participate in the Medicare program today but for generations to come.
  We are not going to stand here as Democrats or Republicans or as any 
political affiliation and say that everything is working perfectly and 
that nothing needs to be altered. The fact is, with regard to Medicare, 
one-third of the people who qualify for Medicare today use every penny 
that they have paid into the system over the course of their entire 
lifetimes within the first year of qualifying for Medicare because they 
have extremely high health care costs. That is something that we need 
to address, but you don't address that issue by slashing the program, 
by gutting Medicare, by taking advantage of those same people we are 
trying to help.
  The fiscal cliff we are talking about is, therefore, a reason because 
Congress had an inability to come to an agreement on a long-term, 
fiscally sustainable economic policy, so we put this deadline in 
place--the first of the year, 16 days from today--when we'll have the 
situation in which the rates of all of the so-called ``Bush tax cuts,'' 
which were extended 2 years ago under President Obama, expire at every 
level, not just at that top bracket that we are talking about in the 
House.
  I do support making sure that that top bracket reverts back to where 
it was during the Clinton administration or whatever we can negotiate 
for that group of people. But in doing so, we can't allow that same 
bracket for all of the taxpayers in the country to revert back because, 
for example, the lowest income bracket, currently 10 percent--the 
people who are working hard and playing by the rules, working 
Americans, working every day for their families--that bracket would go 
back up to 15 percent, which would be a 50 percent tax increase for the 
people who can least afford it if we do nothing, and everyone in 
between would see their tax rates go up.
  So, while we continue to have the debate and the discussion about 
``what happens to that top bracket?'' we have to understand that all of 
those income brackets go up--similarly, the estate tax, the alternative 
minimum tax, the capital gains rate, the child income tax credit, the 
Making Work Pay tax credit that was put into place a few years ago--all 
of these things either go away or revert back to a much higher level 
than they were before.
  That coincides with the cuts that we're talking about, the draconian, 
across-the-board, haphazard cuts that were put in place specifically to 
spur action. Because they are so ominous and make such devastating cuts 
in programs, in tandem with the Bush tax cuts expiring, Congress would 
in no way allow that to happen at the same time. That's what the fiscal 
cliff is. It's both sides--the spending and the revenue situation. Then 
with regard to Medicare, that can't be allowed to be swept up in the 
hysteria that we are facing here in Congress.

                              {time}  2040

  We're going to talk more about this, but just leading it off, that's 
the crux of the discussion. We're going to talk about tax rates. We're 
going to talk in this discussion about infrastructure spending and the 
other investments that we can make as a Nation in the future of the 
country. But in doing so, we can't allow the most vulnerable in this 
country--135,000 of them live in my district, but all across the 
country, 40 million Medicare beneficiaries and the generations to 
come--we can't allow them to be the ones who pick up the bill for the 
decisions that are made here in haste as we approach the first of the 
year.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Altmire, thank you very much for moving this issue 
along.
  I've used this placard before when we were discussing the Republican 
budget that did pass this House that would end Medicare as we know it. 
That was just a way of doing it with vouchers or with what they call 
premium support. Either way, Medicare as a guarantee of health care for 
those people 65 and over would be over. Now, there are other ways that 
Medicare can be whittled away, weakened to the point where it could 
simply die of malnutrition. We want to be quite certain that this 
doesn't happen and that this tombstone never comes to pass. It was 1965 
that President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into existence, and we're 
not going to let it end in 2011 or 2012 or beyond.
  I recall so vividly an experience as a child, I was probably, I don't 
know, 10, 12 years old. My father took me to the county hospital, which 
is where the elderly went to die. There was no Medicare then. It didn't 
exist. More than half of the seniors were in poverty. There was no 
health care available to them. No insurance company would insure the 
elderly. They were expensive. And so there was literally no way that 
they would be able to get health care except at the county hospital, a 
ward strung out as far as my eye could see, beds on both sides, the 
stench unbelievable. The moaning and the crying that was going on 
unbelievable.
  In 1965, America took a step to become a compassionate Nation where 
we would take care of the elderly. And so

[[Page H6865]]

proposals have been bandied about, the Republican budget basically 
terminating Medicare or whittling away at it in various ways, most 
recently to increase the eligibility age from 65 to 67. What is a 
person to do when they're 65 and cannot get private insurance? And at 
the same time, they want to do away with the opportunity that exists in 
the Affordable Care Act for an exchange that could possibly provide 
insurance, but they want to do away with that. Come on. Come on. This 
is America where we take care of the elderly and we provide the 
services.
  Medicare can be dealt with. We can deal with the inflation in 
Medicare and in the Affordable Care Act. Many, many things were done to 
start on that process, for example, keeping seniors healthy, providing 
for the annual medical checkup; making sure that they had the drug 
benefits, making sure that the drug benefit part D was available to all 
seniors; closing the doughnut hole in the Medicare part D drug benefit; 
electronic medical records; infection rates in hospitals being reduced.
  I'm going to take just 2 seconds to show you what has happened as a 
result of the Affordable Care Act and other measures.
  The inflation rate in Medicare has been dramatically reduced since 
the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, went into effect. It is down in the 
2, 2\1/2\ percent range now and has remained there since ObamaCare went 
into effect.
  The changes in ObamaCare extended the viability, the financial 
viability of Medicare by 8 years, and here's the effect. The inflation 
rate is now less than the general health care inflation rate, and this 
has caused a recalculation of the deficit in the years ahead. The 
deficit in the years ahead was based on an inflation rate up here in 
the 5 percent range, but when it's down in the 2 percent range, the 
deficit has been reduced by over $200 billion simply because Medicare 
is not inflating, growing as fast as anticipated back 2\1/2\ years ago.
  More can be done without taking away one benefit from seniors. The 
Federal Government could negotiate drug prices, bringing down the cost. 
The Federal Government could institute better payment mechanisms so 
there is a continuity of care rather than a one-off episodic care for 
seniors. In so doing, seniors stay healthier longer and the inflation 
rate and the cost are reduced. There are many other things.
  But let me be very clear about this. If there is an effort to throw 
seniors who become 65 off of Medicare by denying them the opportunity, 
we will see an increase in the total cost of health care in the United 
States, because those seniors will not be able to get quality medical 
care. They will become sick and they will wind up somewhere in the 
system, perhaps in an emergency room, somewhere in the hospital, and 
the total cost of the system will go up. But if you keep seniors on 
Medicare, when they become 65, they will have access to quality care, 
better health care. And with the changes that were in the Affordable 
Care Act, ObamaCare, they will be healthier longer and the cost of care 
will be reduced for all of us in the health care system.
  Now, I suspect we'll come back to Medicare before this night is done, 
but we ought to talk about jobs for awhile. We were on this floor a few 
weeks ago, and we spent some time talking about infrastructure, about 
jobs, and our colleague from the State of New York, that is the western 
side of New York, is joining us tonight to pick up that issue once 
again.
  Mr. HIGGINS. I thank the gentlemen from California and from 
Pennsylvania for their leadership on these issues--jobs and protecting 
Medicare long into the future.
  As we know, there's a debate going on here about the fiscal cliff. I 
think the American people are looking for leadership in Washington. 
They want a plan, and I think they are willing to endure some pain that 
will be in the form of spending cuts and perhaps some increased 
revenues, but the American people also want a plan that is going to be 
aspirational.
  The fact of the matter is our infrastructure in this Nation is 
falling apart. According to the American Society for Civil Engineers, 
they give us a D grade for the quality of our infrastructure. They tell 
us that $2.2 trillion is needed just to bring our current 
infrastructure to a state of good repair. That's not even taking into 
consideration new infrastructure needs that we're seeing in New York 
and New Jersey as a result of the storms there.
  Infrastructure investment is also a job creator, a creator of 
American jobs. When you invest in infrastructure, you're buying labor 
from American businesses. When you invest in infrastructure, you're 
buying equipment from American businesses.
  Now, with public infrastructure, it's as old as Lincoln. He called it 
land improvements. He meant ports and railroads at the time. Public 
infrastructure is always the public's responsibility. So the question 
is never whether or not you're going to do it--you have to do it--the 
question is when does it make most sense.
  I would submit to you that it makes most sense today. Why? Because 
money is as cheap as it's ever going to be. Every municipal government 
throughout this country borrows money by issuing debt--bonds--to 
underwrite the cost of building new infrastructure.

                              {time}  2050

  We could be borrowing money today for about 1 percent. Labor is 
cheap, equipment is cheap because both are idling. And we clearly need 
the infrastructure investment.
  Final thought on this: Transportation for America, a not-for-profit 
organization, identifies 69,000 structurally deficient bridges in this 
Nation. There's over 2,000 structurally deficient bridges in my State 
of New York; and in western New York, we have 99 structurally deficient 
bridges.
  Every second of every day, seven cars drive on a bridge that is 
structurally deficient. We saw a bridge collapse in New York State in 
1987, the Harley Creek Bridge, loss of life and significant injury. We 
saw it again, subsequent to that, in Minneapolis.
  How many more bridges have to collapse before we address this need?
  We're going to spend less than $53 billion rebuilding the roads and 
bridges of America next year, less than $53 billion. It's weak and it's 
pathetically weak when you consider that we just spent $89 billion 
rebuilding the roads and bridges of Afghanistan, and we just spent $67 
billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of Iraq.
  Work needs to be done, and Americans need the work. With that, I 
yield back to my friend from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, let's continue this discussion of 
infrastructure. The last time we took this up 3 weeks ago, we had 
talked about an infrastructure bank, a proposal that's been presented 
to the House of Representatives now for at least 15 years. I believe 
our colleague from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, has introduced that bill 
year after year.
  You said that the Federal Government can borrow money, 10-year notes, 
even 15-year notes somewhere around a percent and a half, maybe towards 
2 percent. If we were to borrow that, put it into an infrastructure 
bank, and then loan money to infrastructure projects that have a cash 
flow, sanitation facility, water facility, toll bridges, and numerous 
other kinds of infrastructure which are desperately needed, we could 
have a financing system that, over time, would actually make money for 
the Federal Government, could borrow at 1\1/2\ percent, loan at 1\3/4\ 
percent, have a margin there. The money would flow back in. You'd get 
that revolving.
  The President has actually proposed this in his American Jobs Act. 
He's picked this up during his debate, the fiscal cliff negotiations, 
put it back on the table.
  We ought to be doing that. In doing so, we will create tens of 
thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of American jobs, American 
jobs. And if we couple that with Buy American, so that the equipment, 
the steel, the concrete, the other ingredients used in these 
infrastructure projects were American-made, using our tax money for 
American-made equipment, we would even see a resurgence of the 
manufacturing base in America.
  This is a no-brainer. This is something we ought to have done years 
ago. But here, as we approach this fiscal cliff, we ought to take up 
the President's challenge, move forward with an infrastructure bank and 
create jobs in America and build the foundation for economic growth.

[[Page H6866]]

  Mr. Altmire, why don't you pick this piece up and carry it.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I wanted to supplement my friend from New York's 
comments about structurally deficient bridges.
  I always, when I would have town hall meetings and I talked with my 
constituents about this issue, I always use the example, because people 
think, you know, there's better ways to spend money. We're overspending 
ourselves. We're in great debt. Let's just not do anything this year. 
Let's wait till next year. Maybe let's wait till the year after that.
  I always use the example of, there are certain things that you can 
put off. And if you're a family, you might say, times are tough, we 
need to tighten our belt. Maybe I can't go to the movies tonight. Maybe 
I'm going to have chicken instead of steak. Maybe we're going to have 
to drive a certain type of car instead of the luxury vehicle that we 
were hoping to buy--whatever it might be, whatever the family 
circumstance.
  However, no matter what type of house you live in, large or small, if 
you get a leak in the roof, you have to fix it because if you ignore 
that leak, it's not going to fix itself. It's not going to remain where 
it is today. It's going to be worse tomorrow, and it's going to be 
worse next week, until the roof collapses and you have a catastrophe on 
your hand.
  Well, that's the state of our infrastructure in this country, and I 
think people get that. And the gentleman talked about the State of New 
York and the structurally deficient bridges that he has in western New 
York.
  Well, in 2007, I was here, I know the gentleman from New York was 
here, when we had the terrible disaster in Minnesota, when the 
interstate bridge collapsed and the loss of life that occurred. And the 
Secretary of Transportation at the time came to the Transportation 
Committee. I believe the gentleman served on the Transportation 
Committee at that time also, and Secretary Peters came and talked about 
the state of disrepair of our Nation's bridges.
  Now, we can talk about locks and dams and our aviation system and the 
state of our airports and a variety of other infrastructure needs in 
this country which are just as critical; but just roads and bridges, we 
were all given a list of the structurally deficient bridges in our 
districts and in our States.
  And I'm embarrassed to say to the gentleman, Pennsylvania is in even 
worse shape than what he described New York to be. We in Pennsylvania 
have 6,000 structurally deficient bridges. In western Pennsylvania it's 
1,000. And in just the district I represent, currently one out of 19 
districts in Pennsylvania, just my district, 300 structurally deficient 
bridges.
  And the structural sufficiency rating, as my colleagues understand, 
Mr. Speaker, is based upon a zero to 100 scale, 100 being brand new, 
sturdy, as good and strong as they can possibly be, zero being the 
bottom.
  Well, I had several bridges on that list that the Secretary gave me 
that were single digits. I had one that was a two, believe it or not.
  And I remember asking the question in the hearing, I'm not an 
engineer, I've never been that great in math, but it seems to me if you 
have a bridge that's a two on a zero to 100 scale, that doesn't sound 
very good. And should I, as a driver, or any of my constituents be 
concerned when they drive across that bridge?
  What would be the recommendation from the Department of 
Transportation?
  And the response that I got, after they conferred on how to address 
this question, they literally said, well, not if you drive across it 
once. But if that's your daily commute, and you drive across that 
bridge twice a day every day, you might want to find a different route.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not a good answer; but, unfortunately, 
that's the right answer. And at minimum, we should alert the public to 
the state of disrepair that our bridges are in so they can make 
intelligent and informed decisions.
  But in the long term, the clear remedy to that situation, the 
solution is to invest in our infrastructure, to fix our roads and 
bridges because, yes, it puts people back to work, which is critically 
important.
  The business impact, we transport goods all over the country by truck 
and by rail. We can talk about the state of disrepair in other 
transportation sectors too, but we benefit as a country.
  But when you see the safety consequences and you think about the fact 
that we have bridges all across this country that are in such disrepair 
that they are in the single digits in structural sufficiency, that is a 
big problem, and that's why we need to invest in our infrastructure.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Indeed, we do need to invest in infrastructure and we 
need to rebuild.
  I noticed another colleague from the great State of New York has 
joined us. Often Mr. Tonko and I are here on the floor in what we call 
the East-West Show.
  But Mr. Higgins and Mr. Tonko, your State and the State of New Jersey 
got whacked by a superstorm.
  Mr. TONKO. Yes, it did. Sandy.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Why don't you share with us a little bit of what the 
State of New York needs to do on infrastructure repair and how to 
prevent it from happening again.
  Mr. TONKO. Sure. Absolutely. And you know the impact of Sandy, 
Representative Garamendi, comes on the heels of last year's storms with 
Irene and Lee, a double whammy that impacted several counties that I 
represent. And upstate New York was devastated. There was a loss of 
lives, there was destruction to the public infrastructure. Many 
businesses, farms and housing were destroyed, tremendously so; and the 
need to rebuild became very apparent.
  This year, with Sandy, the same sort of impact, this time in a very 
densely populated region of New York City, Long Island, and the 
southern portions of New York State. And so I think it's a stark 
reminder, a very real example, a very painful outcome that speaks to 
the need of investing, investing in our infrastructure.
  As we go forward, there's also an opportunity to improve upon what 
existed at the time of these storms. For instance, in the energy 
networks, the utility networks, we can do state-of-the-art. We have 
taught other nations how to build those systems. It's time to do 
nation-building at home.
  I think the beauty here is that, while we invest in transportation 
and other infrastructure, energy infrastructure and water systems and 
treatment systems and public schools, what we're doing is rippling into 
the benefits of efficiency, of public safety, of employment and 
economic development.

                              {time}  2100

  That is a positive series of dynamics that then lifts the economy and 
provides for work. Ninety percent of the jobs, it's projected, that 
come from this sort of infrastructure investment are speaking to 
middle-income households--jobs that, again, provide for the 
strengthening of our economy, the reduction of our deficit, the 
confidence-building in our economy that is so powerfully felt as we 
walk this distance from the recession, as we continue to do the steady 
climb upward as we grow private sector jobs. This is an important part 
of it. It enhances our productivity. It provides for efficiencies. 
That's what infrastructure investment is about. And it's calculated 
that for every $1 billion of investment, 18,000 jobs are created and a 
sound public service is designed and structured and built so that we 
can go forward with rightful anticipation of a stronger tomorrow for 
our economy.
  And so I think these are important elements, rebuilding after Mother 
Nature has impacted us with very profound damages to our communities--
and building in a way that allows for the creation of jobs and an 
improved outcome, to top it off.
  When the Representative from Pennsylvania, Representative Altmire, 
talked about the Minnesota situation, I served in the State Assembly in 
New York when the collapse of a thruway bridge in upstate New York took 
10 lives. We recently commemorated the 25th anniversary of that event 
back in 1987 and the painful consequences that came to bear upon that 
upstate region, where commerce was affected, where jobs were affected, 
where public safety was compounded. They took the major artery of the 
State of New York with

[[Page H6867]]

the thruway and had to reroute that through a community by establishing 
a makeshift system. And just the presence of that moment onto the 
economic consequences of the State spoke painfully well of how 
important infrastructure is.
  And so we look at the needs in this Nation from coast-to-coast, from 
your west coast to our east coast, and we understand that there are 
needs for those water treatment facilities, for our energy 
infrastructure. We're wheeling electrons along a system that was 
designed for regional service, and now we're wheeling not only from 
region to region but State to State. We're wheeling electronics from 
nation to nation. Canada into the United States.
  We need an upgrade. We need the sort of R&D component that translates 
into jobs that provide the best investment possible. And that's what 
we're calling for here--the sound stewardship of resources and Federal 
tax dollars being utilized in a way that provides the strongest 
outcome. Sometimes it's in the saga of urgency, as is the case with 
Sandy in New York State, as it's been with Irene and Lee, as we 
continue to recover over a year later from those storms that damaged 
upstate New York just over a year ago, and now the most recent element 
of consequence that came with Hurricane Sandy.
  So I thank you for bringing us together to shed light, to acknowledge 
that we can create jobs as we address public safety, as we address 
efficiency, as we address productivity, as we address economic boost, 
so that we can walk from this arena here in this House of 
Representatives knowing that we're doing the sound, academically 
driven, analytically provided results that will speak to a favorable 
impact across the board.
  Thank you for bringing us together.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko.
  Mr. Higgins, I see that you would like to get into this also. I know 
that you're there. So please pick up this conversation and carry it on.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you.
  My colleague from New York is obviously very familiar with all of the 
issues that we're confronted with, but we also recognize that our 
Governor had the presence of mind in putting the package together for 
Federal relief for reimbursement to seek infrastructure money to 
rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed in a way that would 
mitigate or reduce the damage in a future storm, because here's what we 
know with global warming. Storms are becoming much more severe. And 
whether it's New Orleans or whether it's Queens, New York, we are going 
to see another storm.
  It also underscores the need for infrastructure investment to 
mitigate the damage, because by making that upfront investment--those 
mitigation factors--it will reduce the amount of damage when the next 
storm hits if, in fact, our Nation can meet that challenge of 
rebuilding our infrastructure in a way that it ought to be built.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much for bringing that up. It's not 
only an issue on the east coast; it's an issue in the Midwest, it's an 
issue in the West, it's an issue all across this Nation. The climate is 
changing. The storms are more severe and are likely to continue to be 
even more severe in the future. For me, my district is 200 miles of the 
Sacramento River. The second most city at risk of flooding in the 
United States after New Orleans is Sacramento. The Natomas portion of 
Sacramento and certain portions along the American River in Sacramento 
are in extraordinarily dangerous territory. We need to rebuild our 
levees. We need to upgrade our levees. We should not wait until they 
break and then try to deal with the death, the destruction, and the 
rebuilding that then occurs, but do exactly what you said, Mr. Higgins, 
and that is anticipate the next storm. Build ahead of it. Protect 
ourselves ahead of it.
  I have some 1,500 to 2,000 miles of flood levees in my district. We 
need serious infrastructure improvement. Just this last week, Friday, I 
was in the Yuba City area of Sutter County. Forty miles of levee need 
to be upgraded and improved. We need action by the Federal Government. 
The Army Corps of Engineers needs to issue the 408 permit in a big 
hurry so that we can begin the construction of the improvements of 
those levees. And that's not unusual across this Nation because many 
other parts of this Nation, including the rebuilding of New York and 
New Jersey, need to build higher standards--and not just repair what 
was damaged, but to build to a higher standard. That takes money. And 
this is where the Federal Government has a critical role to play. We 
need to make that money available.
  In some cases, there are repayment systems. We talked about that with 
an infrastructure bank. In other cases, there are not, and the local 
governments, together with the State and Federal Government, come 
together and build those systems.
  But the Federal Government has to step forward as the major partner 
in all of these. And if we do it in a way that uses the money to buy 
American-made equipment and supplies, we can create even more jobs in 
America.
  Part of the Make It America agenda that we have been promoting now 
for 2 years is just that--you use that money to buy American-made 
equipment and you rebuild the American manufacturing base at the same 
time that you build the infrastructure.
  Mr. Altmire, you stood up with enthusiasm while I was speaking. So 
what do you have here?
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I wasn't sure if the gentleman was planning to 
transition into another topic as he draws to a close.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, we actually need to do that, but why don't we 
wrap up the infrastructure here and then I do want to spend a few 
moments talking about Social Security and perhaps ending back to where 
we started on Medicare and these programs.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Very quickly, and then I will yield to Mr. Tonko 
directly, if that's okay, afterwards.
  I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues and the American 
people we're talking about what can happen if you ignore infrastructure 
needs, we're talking about past examples and the potential for future 
examples of infrastructure problems all across this country and, yes, 
it's an investment that we need to make. Our roads and bridges, our 
locks and dams, our rail system, our aviation system as we talked 
about, our waterways, commerce, there's hundreds of billions of dollars 
of need. But we're also trying to remain internationally competitive, 
and we can't be internationally competitive if we have substandard 
infrastructure. And that just doesn't mean infrastructure that's in 
disrepair; that means upgrading and improving to adapt to modern 
technology.

                              {time}  2110

  I know as one example, I visited the Port of Miami a year or two ago. 
They're undergoing a multibillion-dollar project to redredge the port--
one of the largest ports in the United States--to accommodate the 
larger ships that are going to be able to come through the Panama Canal 
when the Panama Canal project is completed. If we don't do that in this 
country, if we don't continue to modernize and upgrade our 
infrastructure--not just prevent disasters from occurring, economically 
and through the physics of infrastructure disrepair, but upgrade and 
modernize our port system and our aviation system to be able to 
continue to compete internationally with the other countries that have 
modernized their port infrastructure, we're going to continue to fall 
behind and we're going to lose jobs; we're going to lose the economic 
impact. That's what we have to consider when we discuss the fiscal 
cliff as we started this discussion.
  So with that said, I would yield to my good friend, Mr. Tonko.
  Mr. TONKO. Yes, just rather briefly, the opportunity to invest in 
infrastructure--for an example, our water treatment facilities. When I 
was at my last work station prior to entering the House, it was with 
NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 
There I witnessed these consummate professionals working away at 
retrofitting systems or designing new that dealt with water treatments. 
The savings that were anticipated--that were measured in some cases--
were significant so that the energy cost for local governments doing 
their role, performing their role for treatment of water became much 
cheaper. Those are savings that are recurring. So that while we invest 
in this opportunity, we're also chipping away

[[Page H6868]]

at those budget costs into the future. The same is true of some of the 
research investment that found us, for example, capturing waste heat 
and getting more bang for the buck, so to speak, for the investments 
made in energy systems.
  The American intellect, which has always served as our DNA for 
discovery--you know, we are proud of our pioneer spirit of this Nation. 
It drove an industrial revolution, it inspired a westward movement, and 
it created from mill town capacity these epicenters of invention and 
innovation. Well, we still have that within our core spirit. If we can 
come up with the innovative ideas, the concepts that allow us to serve 
the taxpayer with more useful outcomes of their investments, it is 
beholden upon us to provide the climate by which to do that.
  Earlier, our colleague, Representative Higgins from New York, spoke 
of the mitigation opportunities now facing New York with its repair of 
its infrastructure. If we can do the preventative measures that provide 
for longer life expectancy for these investments, isn't that not only 
the wise thing to do, isn't that the responsible thing to do?
  So there are ways that we can move forward in a transitional sort of 
format where it's ever impacting to a favorable outcome of operating 
costs into the future, of research investments that's translating into 
job creation, and then the infrastructure build that takes to mind the 
concepts, the intellectual capacity of this Nation. It also speaks to 
the wisdom of responding to infrastructure repair, replacement, new 
construction that looks statistically at the data that are collected 
that speak to the impacts of global warming and climate change.
  If we were to, for instance, rebuild exactly as the infrastructure in 
my upstate district after the impact of these storms, it would be 
foolish. We need to adjust the span length. We need to adjust the 
height of this infrastructure so that it is accounting for the dynamics 
of change that are real, that are recorded, that are statistically 
valid. We need to do that in a way that brings this investment into the 
job-creation zone that it is.
  As we stated earlier, as I made mention earlier, for every $1 billion 
of investment in infrastructure, we can anticipate, rightfully, 18,000 
jobs being created, 90 percent of which are finding their way into the 
middle-income community. This is what it's about. It's not about this 
cost-cutting frenzy that denies opportunity, denies our responsibility 
that we all bear here, but, rather, inspires us to belt-tighten, where 
we get rid of outmoded programs and where we most effectively invest in 
the improvements, the repairs, the replacements that are under our 
stewardship.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. Once again, we have a challenge 
ahead of us.
  Mr. Higgins, I know that this has been one of your principal issues 
here in the House of Representatives. If you would like to wrap up on 
this piece of our discussion tonight, on the infrastructure piece, then 
we will take the final 10 to 15 minutes and pick back up to the 
Medicare and Social Security issues that are also very much part of 
what is on the table today as we address the fiscal cliff, growing the 
economy, and jobs.
  Mr. HIGGINS. I thank the gentleman.
  At the outset, my colleague from California, a great leader on this 
issue, had said that it was 12 years ago when we had a budgetary 
surplus of $258 billion. How was that created? It was created by having 
created 22 million private sector jobs in the previous 8 years, telling 
us that the best tax policy is bringing back lost taxpayers to 
productivity so that they're contributing to the Federal Treasury. That 
allows us to make the investments into our economy and, as my colleague 
from New York said, to nation-build right here at home.
  One thing that historically here Democrats and Republicans were able 
to agree on is infrastructure investment. I think the need is 
extraordinarily great right now, and we should do an infrastructure 
bill that is robust and aspirational in addressing the infrastructure 
needs and the decaying state of our infrastructure as soon as possible.
  A final thought on this. There's a report out of the State of Nevada 
that says if you defer infrastructure repair for 2 years, you increase 
the cost of making that repair by a factor of five. So a $5 million 
bridge repair that could be done today, 2 years from now will cost you 
$25 million. A $1 million road repair today will cost you $5 million 2 
years from now. So we need to get to work, and much work needs to be 
done.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You're absolutely correct that if we're to deal with 
the deficit, we have to put Americans back to work. The infrastructure 
has, over the years, been a principal way in which you employ 
Americans--we did this with the stimulus bill and it had great effect--
but it also builds the foundation for tomorrow's economic growth and 
protects people along the way. It protects property; it protects 
valuable assets that we have in our Nation.
  The President has been very clear about this for more than 15 months 
now. Fifteen months ago he put before Congress the American Jobs Act, 
one element of which was the infrastructure. He wanted an additional 
$50 billion over and above the $53 billion that you described earlier, 
Mr. Higgins, as the ongoing infrastructure.
  Our colleague here, we talked earlier--I think Mr. Higgins you raised 
this issue, and Mr. Tonko did also--Thursday, two days from now, we're 
going to take up the National Defense Authorization Act, which is the 
plan for our national security, the military. In that piece of 
legislation there is a minimum of $88 billion to be spent between 
October 2012 and September 30 of 2013 on the Afghanistan war, $88 
billion. That's a lot of money.
  All that we're talking about in this cut discussion that's under way 
between the President and Mr. Boehner is somewhere, $400 billion, maybe 
$500 billion; $88 billion in Afghanistan next year. A good portion of 
that is for infrastructure in Afghanistan, as was discussed earlier 
today.
  We know how to make decisions here. Part of those decisions that are 
on the table today are very serious cuts to the Medicare program. I 
discussed earlier the Medicare eligibility age has been proposed by the 
Speaker of the House on the Republican side to be increased from 65 to 
67 years. It will have a disastrous effect on those who have paid into 
Medicare their entire working lives and expect to be able to have that 
health care benefit available to them when they become 65.

                              {time}  2120

  It will not save much money, but it will surely harm thousands upon 
thousands of Americans.
  Similarly, suggestions have been made to dramatically alter Social 
Security. Suggestions that will significantly harm a vast number of 
Americans--perhaps, I don't know the numbers--probably 20 million 
Americans who are currently obtaining Social Security benefits but will 
not see the adjustment for inflation. These are people that are 
receiving less than $1,500 a month for Social Security. And for many of 
them, for many of them that is their total source of income.
  Mr. Altmire, you have been a person that knows the statistics here 
and knows the numbers. I speak more from my heart rather than the 
precise numbers, so my colleagues, let's join in this conversation 
about Social Security. I think the starting point comes from the 
compassion that we should all possess for seniors, but the facts also 
need to be understood here.
  One fact should be clear to all 435 Members in this House, and that 
is that the deficit that we are facing and all the discussion about the 
deficit and the fiscal cliff is not a Social Security problem. It is 
not a Social Security problem. It is a tax revenue issue which we've 
talked here a little bit about. It is an issue for Medicare, which we 
can solve without cutting benefits. It's an issue for the military, the 
war in Iraq, the $88 billion that we're going to spend there in the 
next 9 months. Those are real issues about the deficit.
  Social Security does not contribute one nickel, one penny to the 
deficit. It is a trust fund apart from this deficit issue. It has its 
own source of revenue, and we ought not be harming seniors while we are 
giving continuing tax breaks to people that are making lots of money. 
Let's get this straight: Social Security should not be on the table as 
we discuss this issue.

[[Page H6869]]

  Now, we know 8 years from now, 7 years, maybe 9 years from now, 
Social Security has to be adjusted because of the continuing number of 
people that are coming on.
  Are we out of time just as I'm getting wound up on Social Security?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bucshon). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I think we are finished for this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________