[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H13-H18]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  JOBS

  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. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  It is good to return from our 3 weeks back in our districts. I 
suspect that most of us spent time talking to our constituents, 
observing the good and the bad and the cold and the wet--not in 
California, where we have been in the midst of a drought--but working, 
as we should, back in our districts and also spending some time with 
our families along the way. For me, it was one of those periods of time 
where we were reaching out, trying to gain an understanding of the 
challenges that face our constituents.
  As I returned here today, I realized that in 1964, Mr. Speaker, right 
below you on the podium where one of our key assistants is now 
standing, a fellow by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson gave a speech--
here is a picture of him--on January 8, 1964, speaking to a joint 
session of Congress. I think it was his first speech after becoming 
President, following the tragic assassination of President Kennedy. 
There he stood. And among the things he told America was that it was 
time for a war, a war on poverty, and he urged the United States to 
take on the troubling and continuing issue of poverty in the United 
States.
  I remember that speech. I was in college at the time. I remember him 
standing there, and I remember that challenge, following shortly upon 
the challenge that President Kennedy had given us to ask not what our 
country could do for us but, rather, what we could do for our country.
  So those two things came together, and they have been with me these 
many, many years, together with one other very famous and very 
important challenge. And this was from Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is 
etched into the marble in his memorial here in Washington, D.C. 
President Roosevelt 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.

  That ethical moral position was taken up by Lyndon Baines Johnson 
when he declared the war on poverty 50 years ago--50 years ago--at a 
time when seniors in the United States, 47 percent of them, were 
impoverished.
  I remember well during those years when my father took me to the 
county hospital to visit a neighbor, the poverty, the ward, the odor, 
the hopelessness.
  So what did America do? What did America do to face this challenge? 
Well, Social Security was already in place, one of the fundamental 
pillars to deal with poverty among seniors. In this Chamber, in the 
Senate Chamber, the men and women who then represented the American 
people put forward an extraordinary effort to deal with poverty in the 
United States. And one of those major second pillars to address poverty 
was the establishment of the Medicare program for seniors. Men and 
women over 65 years of age were guaranteed that, if they lived to 65 in 
the days and years following, they would have a health insurance 
program, which was an incredible step forward.
  Many other things were done. Programs were put in place for jobs, job 
programs across this Nation, in Appalachia, in the Central Valley of 
California, and all across this Nation. There was an outpouring of 
sympathy, an outpouring of the basic morality of this country took 
place.
  In 1967, 29 percent of the children in this country were in poverty. 
In 2012, it was 19 percent, one out of five. That is

[[Page H14]]

far too high. It is a challenge for our generation.
  How did they bring it down from 29 percent to 19 percent? They did it 
with government programs of many kinds--Head Start, food stamp 
programs, programs dealing with earned income tax credits, which, by 
the way, was added during the Nixon period. All of those things 
together reduced the poverty. Today, take away those government support 
programs for children and we would have 30 percent of the children in 
the United States living in poverty.
  I would just like to remind my Republican colleagues that what they 
have attempted to do this year in their budgets, in their appropriation 
proposals, is to reduce those programs that 30 percent of the children 
of the United States--nearly one out of three--depend upon to stay out 
of poverty. That is not a good idea.
  If this is one of our moral compasses, adding to the abundance of 
those who have much or providing for those who have too little, if that 
is a moral compass, how are we doing? Well, let's look at it. Let's 
look at how we are doing.
  One of the things that FDR said from the four freedoms: the freedom 
from want. As a result of the Great Recession in 2010 and beyond, 46.2 
million Americans live below the poverty level, the highest number in 
52 years. Food lines in America today are as they were in the 1930s. 
Men and women are lining up at the various food programs to get food. 
That is America today.

  How about the children? How about the children today, those one in 
five? Well, let's see. If FDR says the test is not how well the wealthy 
are doing but, rather, how the poor are doing, in 2012, the wealthiest 
Americans took home the biggest share of income--the biggest share of 
income, in 2012--ever recorded in America's history. One out of every 
four children in America go to bed at night not knowing where their 
next meal comes from.
  In my own area, Sacramento, California, as reported by the Sacramento 
Bee, the capital's newspaper, the bottom 20 percent of the region's 
people lost 27 percent of their income between 2007 and the beginning 
of 2013. The bottom 20 percent earned less than $23,000 a year, yet 
they lost 27 percent of their income. The next 20 percent, those making 
$43,000 down to $23,000 lost 22 percent of their income. The next 20 
percent--we are now up to 60 percent--those making between $43,000 and 
$71,000 in annual income, lost 15 percent of their income. This is 
America today in my area, where the bottom 60 percent have not moved 
forward but, rather, have moved backwards. Oh, but if you are in the 
top 20 percent, these folks here, they took in 50 percent of all of the 
income generated and earned in the Sacramento region. The bottom 20 
percent took in 3 percent.
  So Franklin Delano Roosevelt, how are we doing with our moral 
compass? How are we doing? Are we adding to those who have little or 
are we adding to those who have much?
  It is clear that, not just in the Sacramento, California, region but 
across this Nation, those who have much are doing extraordinarily well 
while those who have little are falling further and further behind. 
Hmm.
  Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Baines Johnson stood right 
there and he declared a war on poverty. And where are we today? We are 
not winning that war at all. But there are solutions. There are ways in 
which we can deal with this, and one of them is to put a stop to this 
kind of situation.
  This is a photo taken outside of a workshop that I conducted in 
Fairfield, California, for the unemployed. It is a jobs workshop. In a 
town of less than 100,000, 1,000 people showed up seeking a job. 
Unemployment is very real, and unemployment is a specific cause for the 
statistics that indicate growing poverty in America.
  These folks want a job. But yet on December 28, 1.2 million 
Americans--some of them here in this line--lost their unemployment 
insurance. So are they wealthier having lost an average of $265 a week 
on a long-term unemployment insurance check or are they poorer? What 
are they going to do? Of every one of these people, 2.9 of them are 
looking for the one job that exists. So one out of three will find a 
job, maybe.
  The long-term unemployed have an even greater challenge, and we will 
talk about that tonight. We have an enormous challenge here in America. 
We have got to put people back to work.
  In Solano County, where Fairfield is, 2,640 of the folks that stood 
outside searching for a job in early December--by the way, the 
temperature there was not below zero, but it was below freezing--they 
were standing in the cold, below freezing temperatures for more than an 
hour to get in just to have a chance to talk to the 50 or some 
employers that were there.
  By the way, 50 veterans did get an opportunity to get a job that day. 
2,640 long-term unemployed lost their unemployment insurance, and they 
don't have a job today. So what of them?
  Colusa County, which I also represent, is one of the poorest counties 
in America and is also one of the wealthiest counties for those at the 
top. A population of 21,244 people lost their unemployment insurance.

                              {time}  2045

  The stories are in the faces of these people desperate to go to work. 
We're going to talk today a little bit about that with my colleagues.
  A second way in which we can deal with this poverty issue is to deal 
with the minimum wage. Yesterday, I had a meeting of my agricultural 
advisory committee. I have a very big agricultural district, $3 billion 
farm gate. One of the farmers, a conservative fellow, came up to me, 
and he talked to me about food stamps. He said, hey, listen. I know 
you're working on the farm bill, and I know this issue of farm 
subsidies is very much in play, but I'm telling you where I'm coming 
from. You can reduce the subsidies, but make sure people have food. 
Make sure that the SNAP program, the food program, is in place. I'll 
trade the subsidies so people have food. He said--and this was the 
interesting part, because I had not heard it from a conservative 
before--he said, and raise the minimum wage. Raise the minimum wage.
  Interesting. Today, the Federal minimum wage is $7.25. If you were to 
use equal dollars, take out the inflation, $7.25 equates to a minimum 
wage in 1978--this is Ronald Reagan period, 1978--of $10.60. So in 
equal dollars in 1978 the minimum wage was $10.60. Today, it is $7.25. 
So you wonder why, why is it that in America today we have food lines? 
Why is it in America today that one out of four children goes to bed 
hungry worried about where their next meal is going to come from? Why 
in America after 50 years with LBJ standing right there and declaring a 
war on poverty, that we are where we are today?
  Does minimum wage have something to do with it? Oh, yes. Does 
unemployment have something to do with it? Oh, yes--and it's going to 
be worse tomorrow, as it was on December 29, January 1, January 5, 6, 
today the 7th and tomorrow the 8th, when 1.2 million people don't have 
that unemployment check and unemployment insurance is gone. By the way, 
it will get worse unless this Congress acts on the unemployment 
insurance. The statistics are there--right there. By the end of this 
year, unless Congress acts to put people back to work--and we can, and 
we will talk about that tonight--unless Congress acts to extend the 
unemployment insurance, 4.9 million Americans will lose their 
unemployment insurance, and this will be the face of America: hungry 
children. This will be the face of America: hungry adults and families 
without jobs.
  This is America. This is the place where we can solve problems. We 
have it within our capability as a nation and as an economy to put 
people back to work. We can do it if we have the will to do it. It's up 
to us to look into the faces of poverty in America, to look at the 
children of America, and say, we can address this issue.
  We can put people back to work. We can do it now by rebuilding 
America's infrastructure. We can pay for the unemployment insurance by 
not spending nearly $90 billion this year in Afghanistan for the most 
corrupt government on the face of the Earth, $6.8 billion needed to 
keep Americans with food, shelter, and clothing. We can take it out of 
the pocket of Mr. Karzai and his cronies and still meet the challenges 
that my colleague spoke about earlier this evening.
  We're making choices here. We can build our infrastructure. We can 
pay for the unemployment insurance. We can educate our children. For 
those

[[Page H15]]

long-term unemployed that need a reeducation, need to have that job 
skill, we can do it. When we do it, this economy will grow. The taxes 
will flow into the governments of the United States, including the 
Federal Government. The deficits will shrink. You leave that long-term 
unemployment as high as it is today, and we have put an anchor out the 
back of the great economic ship of the United States, and we will not 
be able to move forward in a way that addresses this issue, this 
fundamental, moral issue of America. Are we providing enough for those 
who have too little? Today, we are not, but we can.
  Joining me tonight are two of my colleagues. From the east coast is 
Paul Tonko. You and I have spent many hours here on the floor 
discussing these issues. Joining me is our new colleague from the State 
of Nevada (Mr. Horsford). I'd like you to start. I know you had an 
experience this last week in your district when you met with people 
that were unemployed. Please share with us your view of this issue from 
the State of Nevada.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. First, I'd like to extend my appreciation to 
my colleague, Mr. Garamendi from California, for laying out the case 
for economic mobility. I'm glad that we're beginning to have this 
discussion at the beginning of this second session of the 113th 
Congress because it's the discussion that the American people 
desperately need this Congress to focus on, and you touched on it. Are 
we providing enough for the people who have too little? Are we focused 
on those who are in the middle class and are striving to be part of the 
middle class?
  I'm from Nevada. Nevada is currently tied with Rhode Island for the 
highest unemployment in the Nation at 9 percent. This is not something 
that we're proud of. We like boasting about being the entertainment 
capital of the world and the fact that we have some of the most 
magnificent natural resources. Unfortunately, the prolonged recession 
has hit our State and the people of Nevada to our core, and it's 
because, in large part, our economy was a growth economy. For nearly 20 
years, year over year, we had double-digit growth, and people were 
moving to the great State of Nevada to help us build and to grow. 
During the recession, that changed. So, now, thousands, over 100,000, 
Nevadans are unemployed and have been, primarily from the construction, 
engineering, and architecture sectors of our economy.
  Thousands of Nevadans have spent more than a year now doing what many 
of us here in Congress maybe haven't had the perspective of 
experiencing. So my question to my colleagues tonight is, have you ever 
been unemployed? Do you know what it feels like to have to go to a work 
center or to spend your days full-time looking for work? Do you know 
what it means to submit resume after resume, never to get a call back, 
not knowing if it's your skills or some other issue as to why you're 
not getting that interview?

  Well, thousands of Nevadans have the full-time job right now of 
looking for work, and I recently held a meeting at a local work center, 
Workforce Connections, and met with constituents who are affected by 
this prolonged recession and the discussion that we're having here 
tonight about the need to have a priority and a focus on creating jobs 
in America again.
  They've been affected by the downturn in the economy, and they've 
been affected by the expiration of unemployment benefits, many of them. 
I promised that when I came back to Congress today that I would share 
the story of several of these constituents because too often we talk in 
this Chamber as if there aren't people behind the numbers.
  There are 1.3 million Americans, our neighbors, who are without 
unemployment insurance. Think about that term--insurance, of the 
unemployment insurance program, who are relying on this Congress to do 
its job so that our neighbors, our friends, and some of our family who 
are unemployed cannot be left out and without.
  So I just want to share the story of several of these constituents 
because I want to put a perspective on who we're talking about. One of 
the constituents, her name is Pauline. She's worked in a warehouse 
customer service position. She has a degree in bookkeeping. 
Unfortunately, after more than 20 years in serving as an accountant, 
her skills are outdated, and so as she has looked for current jobs, she 
hasn't been able to land one. She was laid off because technology 
devalued her position, and there was no longer a need for her services. 
She currently lives at a home with her husband and two adult offspring, 
who are also looking for work. One of her daughters just got hired, 
actually yesterday, as a teacher. She was very proud of that. So do you 
know what she is doing after 20 years? She has enrolled in a training 
program to update her skills in QuickBooks so that she can add that 
certification to her resume, because that's one of the things that the 
employers that she's applying for say that they want her to have, this 
certification. She's using the unemployment insurance as a bridge while 
she's in training to allow her and her family to meet their basic 
obligations to keep a roof over their head, to provide food on the 
table and to keep the lights on. Those are the basics that are being 
funded because of unemployment insurance.
  Then there is Alfordeen. She was laid off from the medical industry 
after more than 20 years as an administration person. She handled all 
of the admissions for this local medical company in southern Nevada. 
She is currently looking to obtain her certification for her to meet 
the minimum requirements for current positions in her field. She is 
also a cancer survivor. She found out she had cancer after she lost her 
job, the job that provided her health benefits. She was thankful 
because of the Affordable Care Act she now can get insurance again that 
she lost because she lost her job. After more than 20 years of caring 
for people in the health care industry, she is now relying on 
unemployment insurance as a bridge so that she can meet her obligations 
while going to school so that she can get back into the career that she 
loves, helping other people.
  Teresa also was laid off from the medical industry. She is in need of 
updated skills and certification in order to find gainful employment. 
One of the things that struck me about the stories, listening to 
Teresa, Alfordeen, and Pauline, is they all expressed the same concern 
that because they've been in the workforce for 20--one was in the 
workforce for 30 years--that they feel that they're not being given an 
equal shot now in competing for jobs when they go to apply, that they 
feel like because of their age, maybe, that they're being looked over 
for possible positions.
  I think that's a real issue that this Congress needs to confront. I 
know that there is legislation by people like Representative Schakowsky 
and others who want to bring this issue to this body, and I ask the 
Speaker to allow that legislation to be considered.

                              {time}  2100

  There is James, who worked also as a customer service representative 
and who is enrolled in a training program to become a medical biller 
because he knows that is a demand occupation right now and there are a 
ton of openings. Again, he needs to have a certification in order to 
get the job.
  Then there is Susan, who is currently unemployed, and her 
unemployment funds stopped 3 weeks ago. She is a single mother who is 
caring for her daughter and receives no child support. She has no 
family to rely upon, and she is not eligible nor seeking welfare.
  All of the Nevadans that I have met with have had their unemployment 
insurance lapse, and they are scrambling to make ends meet. No one, 
none of them, wants to live on unemployment insurance forever. In fact, 
they all said to a person that they wanted to go to work. Some of them 
were in training, and they were using unemployment as a bridge. Others 
go to the Workforce Connections office on a regular basis every week 
looking for jobs to apply for. None of them are lazy, Mr. Speaker.
  When unemployment insurance expires, it doesn't just mean those 
struggling to find work won't be able to put food on the table or pay 
the rent; it means money that is pumped into our local economy will 
also be lost, and that is a serious drag on the economy. So if you 
don't want to listen to me talk about the people who are affected 
behind the 1.3 million who are losing their unemployment insurance, the 
20,000 Nevadans, then maybe you will

[[Page H16]]

care that this is a drag on our economy, and you will do the right 
thing by extending the unemployment insurance.
  Overall, failing to renew the emergency unemployment compensation 
program will cost the economy 200,000 jobs this year, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, including 3,000 jobs in my home State of 
Nevada. The expiration of Federal unemployment insurance at the end of 
last week is already taking more than $400 million out of pockets of 
American job seekers nationwide and in local and State economies. In 
Nevada, the total economic benefit lost during the first week of the 
insurance expiring was $5.4 million. For every $1 spent on unemployment 
insurance, it grows the economy by $1.52, according to Mark Zandi, 
chief economist at Moody's Analytics. So there are some 17,600 
unemployed workers in Nevada who have lost their unemployment benefits 
because this Congress failed to do its job in December when we had an 
opportunity to do it.
  I urged the Speaker, along with 170 of my colleagues, to not adjourn, 
to not go on recess until we completed the work of extending the 
unemployment insurance, but that request was not acted upon. So we are 
here, and as my colleagues have said, there are things, there are 
solutions that we can do to extend the unemployment insurance.
  If you want to offset it, if you want to have pay-fors, I would like 
to offer a couple of suggestions on how to pay for it. In order to 
offset funding for unemployment insurance, Congress could close a 
number of corporate tax loopholes, such as eliminating tax incentives 
for companies to move jobs overseas. Why is it that we continue to 
incentivize major corporations, based on U.S. tax policy, for shipping 
jobs overseas when we have Americans who are desperate for work right 
here? Why should big CEOs get corporate bonuses at the end of the year 
for sending our jobs to other countries when the people in our own 
neighborhoods could be performing that work?
  The United States loses an estimated $150 billion annually to tax-
avoidance schemes involving tax havens. Many of our largest and most-
profitable corporations paid absolutely no Federal taxes at all in 
2011. So Congress could also find revenue by placing caps on commodity 
payments or eliminating or reducing subsidies to mega-farms in the farm 
bill that is currently being negotiated. So for whatever reason, if my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that it is the 
constituents I talked about, who get $300 or $400 a week, who are the 
problem with the Federal budget, that they are the reason that we have 
a Federal deficit, then I would urge you to consider these pay-fors. 
Let us end the corporate tax subsidies. Let us end the policies that 
ship our jobs overseas, and let's start investing in America and 
Americans again. There are reasonable solutions, but that means we have 
to come together to get it done. We can't let rigid ideology trump the 
practical need to help those in need.
  I thank my colleagues, Mr. Garamendi and Mr. Tonko, for being here 
tonight, and I am hopeful that the Senate, under the leadership of 
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and my U.S. Senator, Republican Dean 
Heller, who is a cosponsor on the unemployment insurance bill, extend 
it for 3 months. They are working in the Senate to reach an agreement. 
I hope that the Speaker and my colleagues in the House will take it up 
and vote on it so that none of our neighbors go without unemployment 
insurance to provide for themselves or their families.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Horsford, thank you very much for bringing to us 
the message from Nevada, the message of compassion and the message of 
hope and the challenge that we face. This House is fortunate, as are 
the constituents that have elected you, to have your voice heard on the 
floor and heard across America.
  Now, over the last 3 years, my colleague from New York and I have 
talked about jobs, talked about making it in America, and talked about 
this problem of unemployment. So joining me now is Paul Tonko from the 
great State of New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for leading us in 
this discussion for an hour of focus on solutions that are possible out 
there, within our grasp, easily within our grasp. As you and the 
gentleman from Nevada (Representative Horsford) have highlighted with a 
very, very strong context placed in terms of the human impact here, and 
the great compassion with which you spoke, I couldn't help but think 
that we are challenged in this given moment by a very daunting series 
of questions, most notably: Do we reject our history, or do we respect 
our history?
  Our history, replete with success stories, perhaps in some of our 
darkest, deepest, painful hours, should inspire and direct and 
challenge us, guide us in a way that enables us to embrace the 
progressive voices of the past and use that in an instructive measure 
to move forward with the socially correct thing to be done so as to 
respond to those needs of the many, the bulk of the middle-income 
community that beacons us to be there and to be there in such a 
measure. Do we respect that history? Representative Garamendi shared 
the words of President Franklin Roosevelt. Are we willing to add to 
those who have plenty? We were challenged by President Johnson in his 
message addressing the war on poverty.

  Today, as all of these statistics were exchanged by my two 
colleagues, I couldn't help but recall the fact that we are reaching 
some of the greatest measures of productivity in our business 
community, in our industrial settings today. Where is the sharing of 
success? Where is the sharing with the middle-income community, the 
workers who have produced that sort of productivity? So let me 
understand this. The growth of the top 1 percent, the top income strata 
of our society, has been exponentially strong, all while we have seen a 
diminishing of the growth, the potential growth of our middle-income 
community or a flat-lining, all while we have been most productive in 
our industry and business settings. Where is the economic justice? 
Where is the sharing that allows for us to enhance that purchasing 
power of the middle-income community? That is the economic engine of 
this Nation.
  So as we are faced with these given statistics, as we are challenged 
with these economic times in the post-recession recovery, the moral 
compass should guide us, if not our history, replete with success 
stories. Do we respect our history or do we reject our history?
  I would suggest those progressive voices of the past that led us 
through our darkest hours envisioned an outcome that strengthened 
everyone in the equation, not playing toward favorites, because, in my 
opinion, catering to a small percentage of the population is a 
dangerous outcome for them. In order to succeed, in order to continue 
to grow and survive, you need to have that strong purchasing power.
  We know, we know from statistics, we know from past history that we 
should be guided by those economic reforms that enable social and 
economic justice to take hold. I look at the impact in New York State: 
127,000 people affected when I look at the 20th Congressional District. 
In all of the statistics, the numbers swell from 127,000 to another 
series of 133,000 that will be affected. As it has been stated earlier 
tonight, some economic consequences of $400 million and 200,000 jobs 
lost. Are we willing to endure that simply by our lack of 
professionalism here? The willingness to walk past those who, through 
no fault of their own, are unemployed. Three people pursue every one 
available job, and that statistic also is accompanied by the 
requirement that you must actively pursue employment. It is part of the 
program.
  I was visited today, Representative Garamendi, by Vice President 
Biden in the 20th Congressional District. He and our governor, Governor 
Andrew Cuomo, and our State leadership, Shelly Silver, speaker of the 
Assembly with whom I had the pleasure of serving, who has been a great 
leader for New York, as has the Governor, and the Senate majority 
leader, Dean Skelos, all of whom have shown an interest in 
infrastructure, all gathered today in New York in the 20th 
Congressional District, specifically at Albany, our State capital. It 
was about Superstorm Sandy and the impacts of storms Irene and Lee that 
in 2011, for Irene and Lee, and in 2012 with Superstorm Sandy 
devastated various regions of New York State. Yes, we need to rebuild, 
but you need to do it

[[Page H17]]

intelligently and with an order of academics, and certainly with a 
strategic planning that accompanies all of that effort that is 
effective, efficient, smart government. The Vice President spoke to the 
wisdom of investing in infrastructure because commerce requires it.
  Across this great Nation, talk to the midland of America. Without the 
appropriate infrastructure, they can't send forth their agricultural 
produced products or their manufactured goods. They cannot ship 
forward, and so commerce is crippled by our lack of investment in 
infrastructure.

                              {time}  2115

  And so with great sensitivity the Vice President spoke, spoke to the 
infrastructure needs of New York and that we will utilize these efforts 
with the guidance of New York State, with the Governor and the 
legislature, to make certain that it is not merely replacing 
infrastructure damaged by the ravaging of Mother Nature, but rather 
restructuring and reorganizing how we respond to that.
  Much of our energy infrastructure, our water-sewer treatment 
infrastructure, our manufacturing infrastructure, are along water's 
edge, either intercoastal systems or the coastal system itself. We 
extended our land into the coastal system and now Mother Nature is 
saying, whoa, push back.
  But that urgency that came with those storms has us now struggling 
with infrastructure investment. Is that what we require in order to 
invest in infrastructure? So we need to go forward and make certain 
that these down payments on the future strength of this Nation are made 
and made sensibly and made in an order of investment, not spending but 
investing, where reasonable expectation, justified expectation, of a 
return on those hard-earned tax dollars is there. We will see that with 
the infrastructure improvement. So much can be done.
  I will close with this--not close with this, but----
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Take a break.
  Mr. TONKO. Take a break, as they say.
  You can't have it both ways. You can't deny all these legislative 
bills that are advanced to the Congress or initiated by Members of the 
House that would speak to job growth. The President has sent forward on 
behalf of the administration a number of bills that would grow our 
economy, grow the climate to enhance job growth.
  You can't reject that agenda and then not reauthorize the 
unemployment insurance benefit package. If you are going to do that, if 
you are not going to reauthorize, then you need to do the jobs packages 
that have been sent here. But to do both, to reject the job packages--
the legislation that would grow that climate--and also reject the 
reauthorization of unemployment insurance, reject minimum wage, reject 
the SNAP programs, that is harsh. That is not being guided by a moral 
compass, and that is not America at her best.
  So I would implore with my colleagues on this floor this evening, 
with Representative Garamendi, Representative Horsford, I would implore 
the leadership of this House to pursue that agenda that provides for 
job creation and that speaks to economic justice and that responds with 
insensitive measure to those who are unemployed through no fault of 
their own who are actively searching for employment.
  We need those job-training programs. We need the assistance programs, 
so as to maintain the economic comeback from the recession.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you so very, very much. We have got 
about 10 or 12 minutes here. Let's do kind of one of those back and 
forth real fast.
  I am going to go through a bunch of placards here very, very quickly. 
This is part of our job agenda. It is called the Make It In America 
agenda. They are trade policies, and we are going to be dealing with a 
major one of that.
  Mr. Horsford talked about tax policy, critically important; energy 
policy, which we have not come to tonight; labor issues; we have 
definitely talked about the minimum wage, critically important; equal 
dollars. Minimum wage in 1978, Ronald Reagan, was $10.60. Same 
purchasing power today at $7.25. Education. We talked a little bit 
about the education--not a little bit, Mr. Horsford. You talked a great 
deal about the education, reeducation programs. Research, which we 
haven't covered today. And, of course, the infrastructure issues.
  And by the way--you are using American taxpayer dollars for all of 
these things--we ought to be buying American-made products. So we will 
make it in America using American taxpayer dollars.
  We talked a lot about infrastructure. Every dollar you invest, $1.57, 
pumped into the economy, jobs created. Mr. Horsford, you talked about 
the unemployment in the building trades, very important. Most people 
can go back to work, and this can go immediately.
  Oh, by the way, August of this year, unless we fund and expand the 
transportation programs in the United States, there will be no more new 
bids for transportation programs. This issue is before the Congress 
today.
  This one, this is what happens when you don't invest in 
infrastructure. This is the Interstate 5 bridge in Washington just near 
the Canadian border. You talk about commerce, it came to a halt. This 
bridge collapsed. More than a couple of thousand bridges in the United 
States are in similar jeopardy and could collapse. Major infrastructure 
needs to be done.
  This is my district. I have 1,100 miles of levees, floods. We have a 
Resource Development Act bill in conference--I am fortunate enough to 
be on that conference committee--and this is what we must do. We must 
improve our levees, we must deal with Superstorm Sandys, and we must 
make sure that we are protecting our citizens.
  Once again, how do we pay for it? Why are we giving the Karzai 
government $3 billion not knowing how they are going to spend it? I 
will tell you where you can spend $3 billion. You make sure our levees 
are sound and up to date.
  Mr. Horsford, would you like to join us and we will do the quick 
minutes here.
  Mr. HORSFORD. I want to just accentuate--thank you for yielding 
time--the need for infrastructure. In my home State of Nevada, as you 
indicate, the lifeline of our primary industry, the gaming and tourism 
industry, is largely dependent upon a strong infrastructure for people 
being able to get to our State to be able to enjoy our entertainment.
  We have legislation before this Congress that would do just that by 
helping to build a new interstate between Phoenix and Las Vegas, the 
two major metropolitan communities in the intermountain west that don't 
have a major interstate between them that would help create a corridor 
between Mexico and Canada and provide the type of trade and commerce 
that would grow our economy. Those are the types of investments that we 
desperately need, as well as an investment in our veterans.

  A third of my population in the Fourth Congressional District of 
Nevada are veterans, people who have served our country with 
distinction and honor and now have come back home and cannot find work. 
It is why we need to reauthorize the Veterans' Employment and Training 
Act, help to provide entrepreneurial and small business funding for 
veteran-owned businesses so that they can compete and participate in 
the Make It In America agenda that Mr. Garamendi and Mr. Tonko and 
other leaders in this body have worked so hard to bring forward.
  So I urge the House Republican leadership, we are serious about 
solutions for the American people. I didn't come here to be a ``no'' 
vote or a ``yes'' vote for every piece of legislation. I came here to 
work with my colleagues to find solutions to complex problems.
  One of the biggest problems that we face is that not enough of our 
friends and neighbors can find work. The way to address that is to make 
it in America and to support our agenda.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am delighted that you came here. I think the people 
of America as they come to know you over the years that you will serve 
here in Congress will share that delight, your wisdom, your ability to 
articulate key issues. Thank you so very much for joining us tonight.
  Continuing our lightning round, Mr. Tonko.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi.
  Quickly, the infrastructure issues are heavy duty. It is not just 
traditional

[[Page H18]]

roads and bridges. It is airports and rails and subway systems, it is 
mass and public transit, but it is also communications, it is also the 
energy grid.
  We have a system that was designed for regional activity with 
monopolies, and now we are transmitting electrons, wheeling electrons 
from region to region, State to State, nation to nation. So upgrades 
are essential. An infrastructure bank bill could assist in great ways 
to make that all happen.
  Today, again with the visit of Vice President Biden to the 20th 
Congressional District of New York, specifically to Albany, the history 
of the Erie Canal was addressed. In the early 1800s, a huge effort was 
made, a difficult task, to sell an idea in very difficult times. But it 
was again in those difficult times that we had our shining moment, and 
what we did was create out of a small town a huge port. We developed a 
New York City that we know today as a robust area, metropolitan area. 
And the corresponding result: a necklace of communities dubbed ``mill 
towns'' that became the epicenters of invention and innovation that 
allowed for a manufacturing boom to take hold. While we addressed 
quality of life to people, not just in New York, not just in this 
country, we inspired a westward movement, and we affected the quality 
of life of people around the world.
  Often-times--often-times--that growth, that innovation came from blue 
collar workers who gave it their all and who suggested to management, 
here is a new idea, here is something we can produce in addition to our 
ongoing ordinary business.
  So what that strikes in my mind is the need to invest in R&D, 
research dollars that translate into jobs, taking that innovation, that 
intellectual capacity of this Nation, taking all of that brain power we 
develop through education and higher ed investment and putting it to 
work and allowing us to grow our energy independence by innovation, by 
producing energy supplies here as American power and delivering in more 
effective, efficient ways where there isn't line laws, where perhaps 
there is grid system activity that is localized close to the source 
that requires that electricity. Many, many things that we can respond 
to if we open ourselves to the innovation, the reform that is 
essential, and if we attach to that tax reform policy that is so long 
overdue.
  It has been a pleasure to join with my colleagues here this evening.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, somehow I knew from previous experience 
here on the floor that you were going to mention the Erie Canal.
  Mr. TONKO. The Vice President mentioned it too.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. And he did too.
  So actually, before the Erie Canal it was George Washington that laid 
out an economic growth agenda for the United States. He asked Alexander 
Hamilton to prepare a policy on manufacturing, or manufactures as they 
called it there. Part of it was the development of a canal system, in 
other words, the infrastructure the ports, the canals, and the roads. 
In fact, the Constitution says there should be post roads in the United 
States.
  Much to talk about. Make it in America. Use our tax dollars to buy 
American-made products in these areas: trade, taxes, energy, education, 
and research.
  Oh, by the way, 2 years ago, the President of the United States stood 
right there in his State of the Union and said, here is an American 
jobs program. Do you know what he talked about? Every one of these 
issues.
  If this Congress had acted, trains, locomotives, 100 percent American 
built in Sacramento, California, and a new contract coming up for even 
more of these state-of-the-art locomotives.
  Mr. Horsford, end the lightning round, and then we will turn this 
back to the Speaker.
  Mr. HORSFORD. I just want to conclude by ending where you started, 
which is on creating economic mobility for all Americans.
  When we talk about innovation, job creation, growing the economy, we 
are talking about growing an economy that works for all Americans, for 
people who are in the middle class, most importantly, because they are 
the engines of our economy, but also those who are striving to be part 
of the middle class.
  That is why assistance for unemployment insurance and extending 
unemployment insurance is so important. It is why providing nutrition 
assistance programs for families when they are in need is important, 
because they are creators in moving people out of poverty and into the 
middle class; and it is what we are focused on when we talk about 
making it in America.
  We are not saying make it in America for the top 1 percent of the 
wealthiest, the elite. We are focused on those who are the engines, who 
are the backbone, who have made America great. We can do big things if 
we work together as a body to do that.

                              {time}  2130

  I know that is what my colleagues are aspiring to do. I am proud to 
join you here tonight, and I will continue to work with you and with 
anybody from either party who is focused on growing our economy and on 
creating true economic mobility for all Americans.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Horsford, thank you so very, very much.
  Mr. Tonko, thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present a true American 
agenda.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________