[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5576-H5581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           MAKE IT IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wenstrup). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, earlier in the session today, we paused 
in remembrance of those who were killed here in Washington, D.C., 
yesterday, yet another tragedy for this Nation, another shooting, 
senseless rage by some individual. We heard on the floor here a few 
minutes ago a plea by some of our colleagues to call us to action so 
that we who represent the millions upon millions of Americans would 
find within ourselves the courage to take action on wise gun safety 
legislation, mental health, and other things that we know can help to 
address the problem that plagues this Nation. So today, as we start 
this one-hour, I want to just remind ourselves that we have work to do 
here.
  Joining me tonight is Paul Tonko, a Representative from the State of 
New York. We often have had the opportunity to speak on the floor about 
the issues that confront us. Perhaps, Paul, you may want to comment on 
this tragedy, and then we'll turn to the other issues that we want to 
take up today.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, and thank you for 
bringing us together on what will be thoughtful discussion in how to 
invest in America and grow the economy and grow job opportunities, 
create that climate that best cultivates job action and job growth in 
our society.
  Just moments ago on the House floor, we held a moment of silence in 
recognition, in commemoration and respect for those who gave it their 
all, as many were Federal employees in that situation. I also want to 
attach my comments to those of yours in extending my condolences to the 
many family members and friends who are so impacted by this tragedy, 
this horrific act that wiped out their lives prematurely. May they rest 
in peace.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I join you in those condolences.
  Our subject matter for the evening was really going to be about the 
economy, about income within this Nation, or the lack of it.
  I want to just start by referring to a statement that Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt made during the economic crisis of the 1930s. In fact, this 
statement is etched in the marble at the F.D.R. memorial here in 
Washington, D.C. He said:

       The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the 
     abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide 
     enough for those who have too little.

  The test of our progress. Well, what has been our progress over these 
last several years?
  This last week, the economic study of the progress of America since 
the great crash of 2007 was made public. There has been progress. There 
has been economic growth. There has been the creation of wealth. We 
have seen progress, but it's not the kind of progress that F.D.R. 
talked about in the thirties. What we have seen is exactly the opposite 
of what he called for: to provide more for those who have little.
  Here it is, the tale of two Americans, a stunted recovery, but, 
nonetheless, a recovery.
  Where did the economic growth go? Where did the wealth go that was 
created? Was it to those who have little? No. No. No. Ninety-five 
percent of all of the wealth that this economy created since 2007 in 
the great crash went to the top 1 percent. Ninety-five percent of all 
of the wealth went to the top 1 percent. The remaining 99 percent wound 
up with 5 percent of the wealth that the Nation's biggest economy 
created since the crash of 2007. Franklin Delano Roosevelt would not 
have stood for it, and he didn't. Nor did Bill Clinton.
  From 1993 to 2000, the economy grew very rapidly. The distribution of 
the wealth that was created during those years went in a remarkably 
different way than what has happened over the last 5 years. During the 
Clinton period, 55 percent of all the wealth that this Nation created 
went to the bottom 99 percent. The top 1 percent did very well. They 
got 45 percent of all of the wealth. You can say that was not enough 
for the bottom 99 percent, and I would agree; but compared to what's 
happened over these last 5 years, it's a remarkable improvement on the 
distribution of wealth.
  What is the distribution of wealth? It's not a class struggle. It's 
about the

[[Page H5577]]

men and women of this Nation that work hard, that get up every day, go 
to their jobs, as did those 12 people who were killed yesterday here at 
the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. They got up. They went to their job. 
They worked hard for themselves, for their families, and for this 
Nation.
  So men and women all across this Nation are doing what we want them 
to do: participating in this society, following the American Dream. 
They work hard, play by the rules, get on the economic ladder and 
climb.
  Here's what happened to them: not much.
  Something is desperately wrong here in America that the result of 5 
years of labor by the 99 percent, that they would find their reward to 
be 5 percent of the wealth that was created. We need to address this, 
and tonight our subject matter is how we can do that.
  Before we go to that, I want to put up one more chart and then ask my 
colleague to join in.
  What does it really mean down home? What does it mean out there in 
the subdivision or in the tenements? What does it mean in America when 
95 percent of all of the wealth created winds up in the hands of 1 
percent?
  Here's what it means:
  It means that there's hunger in America;
  It means that mothers and fathers are not able to have a job that 
they can provide their children with a meal, with food on the table;
  It means that in this House of Representatives there will be this 
day, this week, an effort to provide even more hunger in America, more 
children going without food as the supplemental food program is slashed 
by $40 billion. That's $4 billion a year for 10 years, $40 billion, so 
that the 1 percent can have even more.
  This is not right. It is not right in this Nation that we have 
hunger. It is not America as it should be, and it certainly is not the 
way Franklin Delano Roosevelt said America should be when the test of 
our progress is not whether we add more abundance to those who have 
much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
  We have a challenge here in America. We need to change things. We 
need to change the public policies that would deny food to hungry 
children, to parents, to our seniors, to our children in schools. It's 
time for us to put in place policies that create a real economic 
growth, real growth that the working men and women of this Nation can 
share in the economic progress of our Nation, and tonight we're going 
to spend some time talking about how we can do that.
  My friend from New York, Paul Tonko.
  Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, you have highlighted in very 
stark contrast the difference in the thought process and the philosophy 
of what was then under President Franklin Roosevelt and what is now, 
and certainly what had happened during the Clinton years, which proved 
much more progressive in its nature.
  If we think of that quote of President Roosevelt where society needed 
to be tested as to whether or not they were going to add more, add to 
the abundance of those who have much, that was a tremendous litmus 
test. It was a challenge to this country to search deep into its moral 
compass. What you're highlighting here, Representative Garamendi, is 
that it's an ebb and flow. It's looking for ways to pay for tax breaks 
for those who are perched way on the top.
  Where you talk of that 95 percent, 98 percent of the growth of the 
economy going to the top 1 percent, that's unsustainable. When you 
think of the gimmickry that is going on, to be able to provide for the 
cost of such spending--because these tax breaks for those perched on 
the top is an order of spending--it's done through cuts to programs 
that speak to hunger, cuts that will impact seniors, cuts that will 
impact our very young, cuts that will impact our struggling families.
  There is no mistake between the correlation of tough times and those 
who are dependent on a number of Federal programs. Throughout history, 
you can suggest through data that are compiled that those charts go 
upward when you have tough times and the reliance on some of these 
programs grows, and it's not unusual that has happened during the 
recession. So some struggling families required assistance.
  You also have the elderly population that have nutrition inserted as 
part of their health care formula and is part of their wellness agenda. 
If a diabetic does not get their nutritional needs met, there are 
problems. If there are situations where people are doing without food, 
it can be the difference between quality of life and sometimes survival 
because of the absolute need to have a well-balanced nutritional 
program.
  The same is true of our very young. We cannot ask our young children 
to go without the nutritional values they require or ask them to study 
at their best level in a classroom on an empty belly.
  The moral compass is very direct here. It points our way and 
challenges us to take those words uttered decades ago by President 
Roosevelt. They speak with greater resonance, a deeper more profound 
resonance than they had when they were perhaps first uttered by the 
late former President. We need to take that to mind. We need to have 
history speak to us. We need to look at what happened when we invested 
in America, in her working families in the toughest of times.
  When we think of the progress made during those Roosevelt years, that 
was a gentleman who was challenged in his own right and who led this 
Nation, lifted this Nation's economy while serving in a wheelchair. 
That is a powerful statement, one that had progressive outcomes written 
all over it. We need to go forward and look at these orders of 
investment that will grow the economy, a tax policy that draws 
fundamental fairness so that there isn't this gross disparity between 
growth for some and denial for others.
  It's absolutely statistically tracked now from as far along as the 
mid to late seventies to today. You can chart what has happened with 
some of these efforts to reduce assistance to working families in 
middle-income communities. It is unsustainable. We cannot grow an 
economy with these sorts of policies in play.
  So tonight, let's look at those investments, from education, higher 
education, to infrastructure, to advanced manufacturing that is 
required so as to allow us to compete effectively in a global economy 
where our manufacturing base can survive if we do it smarter, not 
necessarily cheaper. If we do it smarter, we will land contracts, grow 
jobs with the productivity factor that is developed by inserting our 
policies into the transformation into an advanced manufacturing economy 
and by providing the investments that will draw policies that are 
progressive and more resources that will provide a lucrative dividend, 
make them an investment rather than outright spending, as we saw with 
some of these tax relief measures which did not produce a growth in the 
economy and just made life very comfortable for a very relative few.

                              {time}  1945

  So I think the challenge is before us to go forward and put a sound 
budget together--none of this kicking the can down the road with a 
continuing resolution. Let's name the designees to the conference table 
from each House, from each party. The President has outlined the budget 
with his administration. The United States Senate passed its version of 
a budget. The House has passed its version of a budget. Let's name the 
participants at the conference table. Let's do it in daylight. Let's 
flood the lights on the process. Let's show the sharp contrast between 
the various solutions and recommended approaches that will allow the 
public to be best engaged in the process and to understand the wisdom 
or lack thereof of some of the moves that are required or requested of 
us here in the House.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you very much. You are quite correct 
that we need to move in that direction. The American economy is about 
60-70 percent based upon consumer purchases of homes and cars and all 
those other goods. Part of that reason that we're not seeing the kind 
of economic growth that would normally occur in a recovery is the 99 
percent don't have money. They lost a great deal of their wealth. 
Trillions of dollars of their wealth was wiped out in the financial 
collapse, their pensions, their homes and equity in their home. As the 
economy has recovered, the creation of the

[[Page H5578]]

growth, the wealth, didn't go to them so they have not been able to 
really increase their purchasing power, which has dampened the economy.
  Now, there are things that we can do. You were beginning that 
process. Let's go through them. I'm going to put this back up because 
this is not just a picture of the distribution of wealth in the 
economy, that is, the economic growth; it is also a picture of why the 
economy hasn't really returned. There are other factors, to be sure, 
but clearly the absence of purchasing power, that is, new wealth in the 
hands of the 99 percent, the absence of that has retarded the economic 
recovery.
  This is something we have talked about here many, many times, and Mr. 
Tonko brought this up, many of these issues. We call it the Make It In 
America agenda. This follows along on President Obama's jobs program. 
Many of these elements are the same as he proposed. They are displayed 
a little differently here.
  Tax policy; critically important. We need to redo our tax policy. Mr. 
Tonko talked about the tax policy and the effect that we've seen over 
these many years. But what I would like to do today is focus on these 
others issues, the issue of infrastructure, research, education, labor, 
and energy.
  On the labor side, we have talked about that a great deal here. The 
working men and women, laboring as they are, are they getting a fair 
share of the economic growth? The answer is categorically, no. Are 
there policies that can change that? Yes. One of them has been of 
discussion here in Congress, which is the minimum wage issue. 
California has a minimum wage law that is before the Governor. He is 
expected to sign it, and that will push the minimum wage up to about I 
think $10 an hour, and that will cause the entire wage structure in 
California to move upward, shifting wealth to the working men and women 
in California. Whether the Nation will follow that, the President has 
called for an increase in the minimum wage, and that will certainly be 
helpful in shifting to the working population of this Nation a larger 
share, or at least a fair share of the growth of the economy.
  Let's talk about infrastructure for awhile. I know this is an issue 
you were working on, Mr. Tonko, following the floods of a year ago. We 
see those same floods--different floods, but devastating floods, 
occurring in Colorado. You were one of the strong advocates for 
rebuilding our infrastructure. Why don't you pick that issue up, and 
let's talk about how we might be able to accomplish that.
  Mr. TONKO. There again, it's policy or lack thereof that's impacting 
us heavily. Witnessing some of the unusual 100-year storms, 500-year 
storms as they're designated in a rapid succession over the last 
several years, dating back to the late 1980s, but then in rapid 
succession 2006, 2011 and 2012 in upstate New York in an area that I 
represent, or just south of me in the area that borders my district, 
tells me that even the nomenclature is ludicrous. It is not a 100 or 
500-year storm; it's happening frequently. And it is because we don't 
embrace some of the science out there that, through data compilation, 
is begging our attention. If we're going to continue to ignore those 
impacts of Mother Nature, if we're going to ignore the global warming 
and impacts of Mother Nature on our infrastructure, we are going to 
have more and more bills for cleanup.
  And is it just replacement, or are we talking about reevaluating 
situations? For instance, some of the electrical utility efforts that 
stayed most abundantly strong were distributed energy projects along 
the coast in metro New York with Superstorm Sandy. I saw 
infrastructure, bridges displaced by the powerful force of water, in 
some places equated to the cfs, the cubic feet per second, flow of 
Niagara Falls. So the data are telling you that these storms are more 
and more frequent, you're going to get this extra volume of water, 
precipitation, do you just replace, or do you take a longer span, 
greater height to that bridge design? These are things that need to be 
discussed. Again, it is going to be money coming out of the pocket 
because we're not dealing with the fundamental science that is telling 
us we should anticipate more and more of these storms.
  The infrastructure along these efforts, the coastal erosion, is 
requiring all sorts of improvements of ports. This affects our economy. 
This requires a master plan. This requires a Make It In America agenda 
that puts into play investments into our infrastructure, to replace 
what has been damaged with a sound investment, reinvestment here, that 
improves upon a situation rather than just replaces when we know that 
it will probably not withstand the forces of Mother Nature into the 
future. So infrastructure is critical, and the millions that we can put 
to work with that kind of legislation. The President has called for 
improvement in our infrastructure that will put millions to work. The 
best way to resolve a deficit in this country is to have people going 
to work. The dignity that comes with that investment in work 
opportunity is good for working class families across this country. So 
we know what to do. Let's get on with the business.

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, we were talking about this earlier before 
we came up here, and you may want to take up this issue. This is an 
issue of what an infrastructure investment needs to grow the economy.
  Mr. TONKO. It speaks also to the order of investments, rather than 
the order of spending, as some might label it. As we improve our 
infrastructure, for every dollar invested, according to Mark Zandi, 
chief economist with Moody's and former economic adviser to Senator 
John McCain, $1.57 is realized for every $1 that's invested. To me, 
that is a lucrative dividend. That is an opportunity for us to grow the 
economy by investing dollars, with the anticipation that there will be 
a good return on that investment. That's how it works. That's the 
beauty of building. I think it's what President Roosevelt saw in the 
1930s and 1940s. He saw this opportunity to respond to the needs of 
America, public works projects that were absolutely essential, building 
water treatment centers, building schools and infrastructure, roads and 
the like.
  President Eisenhower saw the beauty of an interstate highway system, 
putting people to work and making strong opportunities available for 
commerce. These are the fundamental needs of a sophisticated society. 
It's the needs of certainly America in a modern age, innovation 
economy. So the roads and bridges as traditional sources, water 
treatment facilities, utility grid upgrades, telecommunications, this 
goes well into the new technology spheres of today where you wire 
communities and neighborhoods for business. There is a dire need for 
that sort of activity. That puts people to work. That's an investment 
that will draw a rate of return on the dollars invested in those 
projects, and that's what makes the wisdom of that approach very 
remarkably sound and comprehensible.
  I think history has taught us well, and for us to ignore history at a 
moment when we are still struggling with this comeback. And yes, there 
has been a steady growth in private sector jobs, but many propositions 
sent to the House and to the United States Senate by the Chief 
Executive, by the President, have been denied simply because of the 
source from whom they are coming. Let's be frank about this. This is 
not the time to play personality warfare. It's time to do sound, 
progressive policies that provide for then good politics, bipartisan 
politics for this Nation and her people and her working families. It's 
as simple as that. Let's go forward, invest in our manufacturing base. 
Innovation economy, clean energy economy, which requires the tools of a 
modern-day economy so we can build it cheaper and smarter perhaps, but 
definitely cheaper. That's how you land those contracts in the 
international marketplace.
  So I am hopeful that our best days, Representative Garamendi, lie 
ahead if we have the tenacity, if we have the integrity to go forward 
with what are the soundest of policies and the boldness of investments 
that are done, that are placed on the table with the full anticipation 
and expectation that there is a reasonable rate of return on that 
investment.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We know there is an immediate return on investment in 
infrastructure. Mark Zandi laid it out there. You invest $1 in 
infrastructure now, and you get back $1.57, and you have somebody 
working immediately. They become a taxpayer rather than a

[[Page H5579]]

tax receiver. So there are some real opportunities here.
  I want to just take a couple of seconds. I was reading The Wall 
Street Journal as I was flying from California today, and there was an 
article by Martin Feldstein, who was Ronald Reagan's chief economic 
adviser, and he focused in his article on several things and growing 
the economy. How do you get the economy growing? He specifically talked 
about infrastructure. He talked about infrastructure as a way to 
immediately employ people. We certainly agree with that. And it's also 
a way you lay the foundation for future economic growth because that 
infrastructure is then available for the future.
  I was in Fresno, California, I guess 2 or 3 years ago, and went to 
the high school to talk at an educational conference there, and they 
are setting this conference in an auditorium that was built by the WPA, 
the Works Progress Administration in the Roosevelt period, the Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt period. So we were using this wonderful auditorium 70 
years later. You go, wow, there's an infrastructure investment in 
education.
  So it is by building this infrastructure we employ people 
immediately, and we then have the foundation for future economic 
growth.
  You mentioned the water system, sanitation, electrical energy 
systems. Roads, highways and the like. And it's jobs today. I want to 
talk about how we can finance them.
  Mr. TONKO. Don't forget our ports, our rail, our airports.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's not forget, this is not new economics. George 
Washington in his first month in office, and this is the first 
President, folks, his first month in office, turned to his Treasury 
Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, and said, develop an economic policy. 
Hamilton came back a couple of months later, not with a report that we 
would have, several thousand pages, but maybe 50 or 60 pages, and he 
laid out an economic policy. Number one on his agenda was to build 
America's infrastructure--ports, canals.
  I know you're going to launch into the Erie Canal now that I've 
mentioned canals, which is your favorite subject. And he also talked 
about roads. He talked about laying down the infrastructure for the 
growth of the economy.
  Before we get to your Erie Canal, I want to talk about something that 
actually happened. This is a good thing. This is a very good thing.
  In the stimulus bill, which by the way did work, not as robust as we 
would have liked, but it did work, there was a provision to build 
locomotives for Amtrak. I think it was about $800 million over a period 
of years would be spent on building locomotives for the east coast.

                              {time}  2000

  This is so you can get home, Mr. Tonko, on the east coast here. These 
locomotives were to be 100 percent American-made. I don't know who 
wrote that provision, but it was one of the very few provisions in the 
stimulus bill that said make it in America, 100 percent American-made.
  Siemens, a German company, one of the big international industrial 
companies, said, $800 million. Oh, you have to make it in America. 
Okay.
  Siemens had a factory in Sacramento, California, to manufacture light 
rail cars, you know, street cars and the like. They got this contract.
  This is the first locomotive made in America by Siemens under that 
stimulus provision. They're going to make, I think, 80 of these over 
the period of the next several years, 100 percent American-made.
  And now, across the United States, as a result of this infrastructure 
investment, we're beginning to see companies in a supply chain, some 
that are making the wheels, the truck underneath, which is where the 
wheels attach to the locomotive, the facility up on top that attaches 
to the electric lines. All of this, American-made, 100 percent 
American-made.
  And by the way, I have a piece of legislation in that would continue 
that that says if you're going to spend your tax money on 
transportation systems, highways, bridges, locomotives and the like, 
it's going to be your tax money used to buy American-made equipment, 
just like George Washington said we ought to do it.
  Mr. TONKO. Well, you know, it does go back to our humble beginnings. 
And again, history instructs us. History, if we allow it, will guide 
us. In some of our toughest times we realize some of our greatest, most 
monumental success stories.
  And you did mention the canal, which for my area, I see the 20th 
Congressional District that I represent, is a donor area for that 
canal.
  But I just want to make this factoid available. In those times, 
people look back, and they think, well, what a wonderful project, and 
it probably sailed through. No, it met with great controversy, and it 
was proposed because of economic difficult times.
  And here was a vision. That's leadership. Give us the vision of how 
you can grow the economy, what can we do that is strong and forceful 
and will change the outcomes out there. And it was this connection of a 
port, in a little town called New York, that gave birth to a necklace 
of communities called mill towns in upstate New York that became 
epicenters of invention and innovation.
  That all came about with a struggle, a struggle to find the 
investment available to build this canal. So the struggle will always 
be there.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. What was that canal?
  Mr. TONKO. The Erie Canal, barge canal history, which is wonderful.
  But my point here is that there will always be struggle. For issues, 
there will be a counterforce to every force of perceived good that can 
happen, but that doesn't mean we should walk away because the climate 
or the environment is difficult.
  We go forward. We know what has to be done. History has been 
instructing us here. Science, through data compilation, is reminding us 
of some very tortuous outcomes that have been part of very atypical 
storms. Superstorm Sandy, which gripped the entire Northeast, was 
atypical. Tropical storms and hurricanes in upstate New York, unheard 
of, that produced all sorts of damage, including loss of life, loss of 
farm land, valuable farm land, loss of businesses, loss of homes in 
some ways, totally swept away by the forces of water.
  That is a difficult situation that needs to be addressed with 
infrastructure improvements. If not, if we do not take this to heart 
and mind, we will be, I believe, a lesser society for not having paid 
strict attention to both science and history which ought to guide us.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, if you take a look at Superstorm Sandy--I don't 
know what they're going to call the storm that is occurring in 
Colorado, but we're also seeing the necessity to prepare for climate 
change and these new very strong, very dangerous storms that we now 
have seen repeated.
  There's going to be a major infrastructure investment rebuilding 
Colorado, just as there was a major infrastructure investment in 
rebuilding the east coast following Superstorm Sandy. As that 
investment is made, we will see the economy begin to pick up as men and 
women return to work, if we take--what I think we ought to do is to 
spend that money on American-made concrete and steel and the like. As 
we rebuild these necessary infrastructure works we will add to the 
economic potential of that rebuilding.
  Now, how are we going to pay for it?
  Let's get down to what has been, I think, the most common complaint 
here: oh, you're just going to borrow the money and we're going to run 
up the deficit.
  Well, Martin Feldstein was very clear today that if you make an 
investment in infrastructure, you're going to immediately employ 
people, and you will be making a major step towards solving the deficit 
problem. You do that now, he said. Begin that investment now.
  Yes, you're going to borrow the money, not all of it, and there are 
ways that we can get, that we'll deal with that.
  But there is a necessity of enhancing the economy. His suggestion was 
the infrastructure as one of the principal ways of doing that.
  Now, we have ways of financing this. It's been discussed forever, 
dating back to the mid- and early nineties, that we ought to have an 
infrastructure bank.
  The Europeans have an infrastructure bank. It's proved to be very 
successful. The money goes out to build

[[Page H5580]]

infrastructure. The repayment is made by bridge tolls, by fees on 
roads, by canal fees, other kinds of fees. That money comes back. It's 
circulated.
  The President has called for an infrastructure bank, taking an idea 
that's been before Congress for the last 20 years, and he said, let's 
do it. Let's do it. We can borrow money at the Federal level still, 
less than 3 percent, sometimes 2 percent, put that into an 
infrastructure bank, invite the private sector pension funds and others 
to become part of that bank, and then lend that money out to those 
projects that have a cash flow, toll bridges, sanitation projects, 
waterworks, other kinds of things, so that we can get this economy 
moving.

  We also had a program coming out of the stimulus bill called Build 
America Bonds, BABs, Build America Bonds. Those lasted all of 2 years, 
and then our colleagues here refused to reenact the Build America 
Bonds. These are other ways in which local entities can borrow the 
money and build the infrastructure and get their economy going.
  And, furthermore, laying the foundation for future economic growth: 
you can't build a city on yesterday's infrastructure. You need to 
replace it, to be sure; and this is part of the problem in our cities, 
the aging infrastructure, the waterworks, the sanitation system and the 
rest. We need to rebuild that, but you also need to expand the 
infrastructure.
  One final way that we can talk about financing this is how we do 
spend the tax revenue that does come in to the American Treasury.
  Right now, Congress is debating on how to spend money for the next 
fiscal year which begins on October 1, how are we going to spend it.
  Part of that appropriation process is to appropriate $87 billion for 
the Afghanistan war in the coming year, October 1 through the 2014 
year, until September 30, $87 billion for Afghanistan.
  How much money for flood protection in Colorado, flood protection in 
my district, flood protection across the Eastern Seaboard to build the 
seawalls? Virtually nothing.
  But $87 billion for Afghanistan. For what? For what? To build 
facilities that we will either destroy as we leave or will be destroyed 
shortly after we leave?
  Seven billion dollars for the Afghan National Army, $2.5 billion of 
which is for good things to be done, no line items, no particular 
knowledge about what they're going to spend that money on. I suspect 
most of it's going to wind up in some bank account by some crook in the 
Bahrain banks. $2.5 billion.
  What could we do with $2.5 billion here in America?
  And by the way, we're drawing down the troops in Afghanistan. We're 
actually going to spend more money in Afghanistan next year than we are 
this year, even though we have 60 percent fewer troops in Afghanistan.
  We're making choices. Your Representatives, 435 of us, and 100 
Members of the Senate, are making choices about how your money's going 
to be spent.
  And by the way, I haven't talked about the nuclear bombs, 5,000 of 
them. We're going to rebuild them. Now, there's a good investment. 
Really?
  I don't think so, not when the levees in my district can't be rebuilt 
to protect my citizens from floods, to rebuild a nuclear weapon that we 
don't need in the first place. I don't think so.
  So we're making choices. We're making choices for you, the American 
taxpayers, about how your money's going to be spent.
  For me, I want to spend it in America. I want to spend it on 
American-made goods and equipment, not on products from China, as 
happened with the newly reopened San Francisco-Oakland Bay bridge--
steel from China, not from America.
  I want that money spent here, and I want that money spent on our 
infrastructure, on our education, on research, energy projects.
  We're going to make choices. We're making those choices right now. 
We're up against the wall. By the end of this month, September 30, the 
government runs out of money.
  Where are we going to spend it?
  Or are we going to spend it all?
  Are we just going to shut down government?
  I don't know. I'm worried. I'm worried about the choices that we're 
making. I'm worried about more expenditure in Afghanistan and not here 
at home. I'm worried about rebuilding all these nuclear weapons that, 
God willing, we'll never use.
  Choices. Can we actually build America?
  Can we find the willingness to create an infrastructure bank?
  Can we find the willingness to bring the money back home and spend it 
here to build this economy?
  Because, ultimately, as our Joint Chiefs of Staff have said 
repeatedly, it's the American economy. Without that strength, there 
won't be military strength.
  I've gone on too far here. Mr. Tonko, let's begin to wrap this up.
  Mr. TONKO. Yes. In fact, I will offer my closing comments here, 
Representative Garamendi.
  You know, I think what you talk about in choices are exactly what a 
budget is about. It's the priorities we establish, in a bipartisan 
fashion and a bicameral way, that enable us to go forward with the best 
blueprint that grows the most hope and promise for this Nation. If we 
can deliver that hope, we've done our job.

  This is about investing in the American Dream. It's about responding 
to that old, old adage within this Nation that you tether that American 
Dream here in this wonderful Nation, where people rightfully anticipate 
that if they play by the rules, they roll up their sleeves, they invest 
their talents and their skills and their intellect and their passions 
into work, they rightfully anticipate to taste success; and that allows 
them to have an equal shot at opportunity in this Nation.
  That has not been the guiding course. We have had an unlevel playing 
field. We have made choices that have penalized the great percentage of 
Americans; 95 to 98 percent of Americans have been impacted by some of 
these choices and priorities to the negative.
  And so it's important for us, I believe, to offer that dream, that 
American Dream, the underpinnings of support that it rightfully 
requires.
  The cost of a college education ought to be addressed by Washington. 
We need to forcefully come up with a plan that reduces that cost, 
because that higher ed opportunity, those apprenticeship programs are 
training the workforce of tomorrow. And without that workforce, without 
that human infrastructure, we are less robust in our competitive force.
  What about the investment, as Representative Garamendi mentioned, in 
infrastructure?
  What about that infrastructure bill that has worked well in sections 
of the globe?
  Why not go forward with that opportunity so that small business can 
prosper in that outcome?
  The great engine of this economy, of this comeback, has been small 
business growth; jobs provided by those business citizens who are 
tethered to their community, who have enabled women and men in all 
sections of this country to draw a paycheck through some sort of 
commitment that they make as a small business person, giving that work 
opportunity to their neighbors and to the communities that they call 
home.
  That's the strength that we need for small business so that we can 
continue to be that engine of comeback. That comeback scenario is 
incredibly valuable to this Nation.
  And what about going forward with the commitment?
  There's a soundness of that moral compass that should guide us. 
Forever there will be those who require justice in our society, 
economic and social justice.
  We're reminded by our Founding Parents that we are in search of a 
more perfect Union. Well, the imperfections need to be addressed by 
those priorities that are established, established by us, the people's 
representatives in this House and in the Senate and in the White House, 
all of us working in a bicameral, bipartisan way to put aside petty 
partisan differences, to put aside personality warfare, and make 
certain we go forward with an agenda that is truly all-American, 
driven, ignited, and lifted by the American Dream.

                              {time}  2015

  Our days, Representative Garamendi, that lie ahead hold great 
promise,

[[Page H5581]]

great hope. I'm convinced that our best days lie ahead if we allow 
history and science to instruct us and to reach our hearts, our souls, 
and our minds as we go forward with the development of a budget that 
will be sound and reflective of all of America, with every one of her 
daughters and sons reflected in those decisions.
  So I thank you for bringing us together this evening.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you very, very much. Indeed, our best 
days are ahead of us. Even in the dismal days of the Great Depression 
in the thirties, Franklin Roosevelt laid it out very clearly when he 
said:

       The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the 
     abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide 
     enough for those who have too little.

  If 95 percent of the wealth that's been generated over the last 5 
years winds up with 1 percent, we've got a problem, because the economy 
isn't going to grow and what will happen is this: hunger in America.
  Later this week, we'll take up the nutrition bill for this Nation. 
There are those who want to remove $40 billion from the nutrition 
programs for our children, for our seniors, for those that are 
unemployed, and for those that are searching for work. We can do 
better; we really can.
  The best days are ahead of us if this Congress and the Senate, 
together with the President, work together and lay out those plans that 
have informed us historically that they work.
  Investment--investments are those things that make America strong--
infrastructure, research, education, those are things that are timeless 
and work year after year. They're also things that have recently been 
reduced and cut.
  We can't let this happen in America. We cannot allow that to happen.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________