[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.
____________________