[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5076-H5081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           STUDENT LOAN DEBT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, as I was flying to Washington from 
California today, I recalled conversations I had over the weekend with 
a group of students who are headed back to school at the universities 
in California and other parts of the Nation.
  To an individual, I asked them: ``How are you financing it? What are 
you going to do? Are your parents taking care of you; your 
grandparents?''
  In some cases, they said: ``Well, they are helping a little bit, but 
I am going to do this with a student loan.''
  All across this Nation, young men and women and maybe some that are 
not so young are going back to school to continue their education, to 
begin it, and, in some cases, learn new skills, and they are taking out 
student loans. This is an incredible, incredible way in which we have 
now begun the financing of our higher education system.
  What does it amount to?
  Well, let me show you what it amounts to. It amounts to a whopping 
amount of debt. Among Americans, no other loan program exceeds the 
amount of student debt, except for home mortgages. It is well over a 
trillion dollars in 2014, and probably approaching a trillion and a 
quarter dollars.
  It is a burden on not just current students, but students from 
yesterday and from the decades before, still carrying that burden of 
debt, unable to begin what used to be the normal process of a family, a 
car, a house, participating in the economic activities of America. But, 
rather, they are burdened by an extraordinary debt. And here we are in 
Congress, really not even paying attention to this fundamental American 
issue. It is an economic issue for the large economy. It is 
macroeconomic. It is also very, very much a personal issue.
  Is there one of you out there in America that doesn't have a son, a 
daughter, or maybe even yourself that is burdened by this student debt?
  You are paying interest rates that are 5, 6, 7, 8 percent and you are 
wondering why, if you are able to refinance your home, why you are not 
able to refinance your student debt.
  That is a reasonable question and one that I asked my staff and 
others: Why

[[Page H5077]]

can't we refinance this student debt? After all, the Federal Government 
is able to borrow money for 10 years at less than 2 percent. Why don't 
we refinance those loans--that trillion dollars--and bring it down from 
5, 6, 7, 8 percent, down to, let's say, 2 percent, plus 1 percent for 
the processing costs?
  We could do it. It is feasible. It is possible. Oh, but it is going 
to cost the government. Well, yes. Right now, the government is earning 
a profit on the backs of those students. Over $200 billion of profit 
will flow into the Federal Government because we, the American public, 
through the inaction of Congress, are burdening the students of America 
today and in the past with this incredible amount of debt. So let's 
refinance it.
  Here are some astonishing facts that you may not know. It is $1.2 
trillion--actually, more--second only to the mortgage debt. The number 
of borrowers on the average balance increased by 70 percent between 
2004 and 2012. In other words, mostly every student is taking out 
loans. The average student loan debt for graduates of 2015 is $35,051, 
a burden that they will carry for many, many years.
  There are solutions, one of which several of us in Congress and the 
Senate have proposed, somewhat different versions, but they all amount 
to refinancing your student debt on current students who are borrowing 
as well as those in the past that have taken out loans. We can 
refinance it.
  Take a look here. My particular legislation would set all student 
loan interest rates at 3.23 percent. Actually, that was based on the 
10-year cost of a Federal bond about a year ago. So it is a little less 
today. Save low-income borrowers thousands by delaying the interest 
while they are actually in school. Right now, that interest rate will 
continue to accrue.
  I was talking to a person on the airplane today. They said: ``Well, I 
am going to go back to school, but I can't continue to pay off my loan 
just because I get a hiatus.''
  I said: ``Whoa, whoa. Yes, while you are in school, you don't have to 
pay, but that interest clock continues to tick along the way.''
  So this legislation would say that if you are continuing your 
education, the interest clock stops. Also, we want to make sure that 
the average student can save a lot of money. It amounts to over $2,000 
through the life of the loan.
  By the way, why does the Federal Government currently cause a cost 
here called the origination fee? I know if you go borrow money or 
refinance your mortgage, there is a fee. But why would the Federal 
Government charge a fee for the origination of a loan?
  Students go down to the student loan office at the university and 
they take out the loan. The cost to the Federal Government is part of 
that over $200 billion profit that the Federal Government has.
  Anyway, we have an opportunity here to address this issue. Now that 
everybody is focused on this, let's see what we can do.
  Changes to the student loan interest rates, we talked about this. If 
you are a graduate student, it is over 6 percent and so forth. We can 
bring it down to less than 3 percent based upon today's rates.
  There are other people that are involved in this effort to try to 
deal with the cost of education here in the United States. I want to 
introduce to you a friend of mine who is often on the floor as we do 
our East-West show, Paul Tonko from the State of New York. I know that 
he is faced with this issue in his district, as I am in mine. I 
represent the University of California, Davis and four different 
community college campuses, all of which have this problem. If he would 
share with us his situation in New York and what he faces in his 
district.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
leading us in this Special Order to focus on what is a very strong 
concern that some in the House have for the costs of higher education.
  We have prided ourselves as a society on our intellect and our 
intellectual capacity. That has driven all sorts of entrepreneurship. 
It has driven new product lines, prototypes that are developed. It 
really provides for a comeback as an economy, based on the intellect 
that we can drive into the equation for us as an American society.
  So it is very important to be able to make certain that whatever 
those skills, those talents, those abilities, those likes, those 
passions are of students out there, that they pursue their intellectual 
development in a way that is not stifled or diminished by the cost of 
student loans.
  As you heard from Representative Garamendi, that loan activity--
student loan debt--rivals that of automobile loans and house loans. 
Something of the caliber of $1.2 trillion in debt for student loans is 
not a driving factor that will build our economy. It is one that will 
have people paying for years and decades for the experience of a higher 
education.
  People are adjusting their dreams, they are adjusting their goals, 
simply by looking at what debt they can assume or what the salary 
structure may be. That is telling us we are not fitting our skill set 
or our intellectual ability to the most appropriate journey that we can 
travel as students because of the debt situation.
  Now, there are many things that we can do. And that was outlined. 
Representative Garamendi, I look at the student population in New York. 
I look at the wonderful institutions we have: higher ed institutions, 
public and private sector, a community college environment that is 
tremendously strong. Many will suggest that is the campus of choice 
these days, for economic reasons and for very practical reasons.
  So we shouldn't limit that choice because we are not open to change 
in this arena. We have got to side, I believe, with consumers out 
there--that being students and their families--making certain that 
items like loan forgiveness, revisiting our loans and refinancing those 
loans so they are more affordable and forgiveness that comes for those 
that may start a business or a social enterprise and assistance that 
might be given them.
  I know Secretary Clinton has made mention of that in her campaign for 
President, making certain that in distressed communities there would be 
loan forgiveness, I believe, by as much as $17,500, and making certain 
that we are utilizing the strength of our intellectual capacity, driven 
by desires of students out there that can then champion the cause of 
the growth of our economy. But we have to be mindful of the debt with 
which they are saddled, that we may diminish those dreams, we may 
suffocate those dreams, simply by the lack of affordability of 
investing in one's future.
  So I stand with our colleagues in the House. I stand with 
Representative Garamendi on the issue of refinancing college loans, 
making certain that, if you can revisit the situation for your 
mortgage, why not be able to go forward and revisit that student loan 
debt that you assume?
  Again, in Secretary Clinton's package, she speaks of the opportunity 
for, I believe, some 25 million borrowers in this country to be able to 
save upward of $2,000 on their college loan simply by refinancing at 
today's rates.

                              {time}  1945

  So there is an opportunity for us to be constructive and creative in 
responding to the needs of our students. We have got to do that. That 
has to be of utmost priority in this House and in this Congress so that 
we can go forward and alleviate, however possible, the burden of that 
student loan debt. No society can continue to function adequately and 
effectively without addressing the cost of that higher education.
  These are tools, the higher education opportunities are the tools in 
the kit that enable people to truly aspire to their dreams, to their 
goals, and to be able to utilize fully their given abilities that have 
been fostered and nurtured and brought to the forefront. That discovery 
is made through K-12, and it is denying that self-discovery of what 
your strengths are, simply by the cost of a college loan, that is 
diminishing that opportunity.
  So let's go forward. We know what to champion here in terms of 
forgiveness of repayment of direction that can be fostered by the 
Department of Education, where there can be, again, a revisiting of 
loans, refinancing those loans in a powerful way that enables us, 
again, to do the economically strong thing for this Nation and for 
individual students and their families.
  You know, as was made mention by the gentleman from California, these

[[Page H5078]]

are loans that are visited not only years, but decades into the post-
higher ed experience, where people are then hampered when it comes to 
other choices of growing a family, having a family, raising that 
family, maintaining a household.
  These are situations that we need to address so that the freedom of 
choice to these individual students is fully freedom, fully allowed to 
be addressed by them, as individuals who want to make choices for their 
future.
  Again, thank you, Representative Garamendi, for leading us in this 
Special Order.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman from New York with whom we have 
often on the floor talked about many, many issues, including making it 
in America and building a strong economy here. But a strong economy 
really depends upon the individuals that work in that economy, and if 
they are saddled with student debt, they are not able to really explore 
and really carry out all of their potential. So what we want to do is 
to address this issue.
  You mentioned the Presidential campaigns, and Secretary Clinton, she 
actually has a very strong and robust and fulsome program dealing with 
the cost of education. She does have an additional item beyond the debt 
issues, which you very well explained that she wants to pursue. She 
also has a program in place where all families who earn initially less 
than $85,000 a year would be able to go to a State university, public 
university in their State, at no cost, and that would then grow to 
$125,000 in the next 4 years. That is really extraordinary.
  That is pretty much like it was when I went to school a few decades 
ago and the University of California was literally free. We had a 
couple of--I don't know--$125 for the Student Union and some athletic 
programs, but it was tuition-free. Those are bygone days.
  But Secretary Clinton believes--and I think she is correct--that it 
is possible for the Federal Government to institute programs that would 
make higher education free for those families that earn initially less 
than $85,000, and then growing to less than $125,000. What an enormous 
boom that would be to the economy.
  So I am excited. I am excited about the potential here in the House 
of Representatives. Peter Welch, our colleague from Vermont, has 
introduced a bill that is identical to Senator Warren's over in the 
Senate, and they have a refinancing bill, similar to my bill. My bill 
goes a little bit further because we not only lower the cost of current 
students' loans, but we go to those loans that are on the books. So we 
can deal with this. We have the ability and the economic strength in 
this Nation to deal with it.
  I know you may have some additional comments on that, but my mind, as 
we were talking here and I was thinking about this Special Order hour, 
went to the young and the not-so-young that have student loans, but 
also to those that are now in their more senior years and the issues 
that they face in their senior years. So perhaps we can shift to that, 
unless you have some additional things on student loans.
  Mr. TONKO. Well, let me just make mention that--associating my 
comments with those that you just made about the opportunities for 
working families to have that tuition issue addressed, I believe that 
would cover some 80 percent of American families, which, to me, is a 
tremendously strong number universe.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Wow. 80 percent of American families would be able to 
send their kids to school without tuition costs.
  Mr. TONKO. Would be able to participate in that program. I think that 
when we start to address those numbers, you can imagine the impact that 
that would have on revitalizing our economy, producing the talent that 
we need.
  You know, I am impressed with the startup businesses that students at 
various campuses that I represent are being offered, these wonderful 
startup opportunities that are tremendously creative and innovative, 
and that was all triggered by--the inspiration came through work in the 
classroom and in labs that they may have in pursuing their degree.
  This is the sort of climate that you want to grow, not shrink; and 
that is why these opportunities for these many, many families in this 
Nation--to have that benefit, that is how we prosper.
  Also, when we talk about Secretary Clinton's plan, I believe it is 
that there is the proposal to make certain that community colleges be 
free for all families, for all working families, making certain that we 
are in compliance with what the President has suggested many times over 
during his administration, the sought-for degree, that working 
knowledge of an associate's degree, where there is oftentimes hands-on 
experience through that matriculation.
  It is so important for us to recognize that community colleges 
oftentimes speak to the needs in an atypical fashion, where there may 
be individuals working and going to school, raising a family, going to 
school, keeping it close to home, so that there is affordability in 
that regard; and making certain that, again, we have that need for the 
business community, for the commerce community, to be met so that this 
hands-on training, educating, matriculating is made possible through 
the community college which oftentimes is the campus of choice.
  So I think it is putting all the dynamics of what is changing in our 
society into a working order. And I have to compliment Secretary 
Clinton for having that commitment, making that commitment to students, 
their families, our Nation, our economic resurgence, our recovery, and, 
certainly, to the innovation economy that finds us working within an 
international marketplace, where we can't afford to go backward or 
stand still. We need to go forward, and a plan like this will enable us 
to empower the engine of higher education that then takes us to new 
levels.
  We have talked about this many times over. There is a pioneer spirit 
in this Nation. I am a host community to the original pioneer spirit, I 
believe, in terms of an Erie Canal movement that sparked a westward 
movement and an industrial revolution. You see it with all sorts of 
tech valleys that have driven the economy.
  These are the dynamics of which we speak so often on this floor, that 
need to be heeded, need to be made priority in our agenda of getting 
work done so that this Nation can again stretch its opportunities to 
all the folks that we can so that we will then provide those 
opportunities which create that intellectual capacity.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am so pleased that you brought up this issue of 
entrepreneurs. I know you often talk about this as something that is 
very important to you personally and the work that you have done before 
you came to Congress in New York State with the entrepreneurial 
activities of that State.
  But I also note that Secretary Clinton, who was a Senator from New 
York, perhaps had listened to you during those years, and is carrying 
in her proposal a very special program for entrepreneurs.
  I am thinking about a group that I met with in Davis, California, 
this last year, a group that actually nourishes students that are 
wanting to start a business. And as you said, coming out of the science 
or out of the technology or other areas, they come upon an idea where 
they want to grow a business.
  Well, Secretary Clinton has loan forgiveness as part of her education 
package that would forgive $17,500 of their student loans when they 
begin that business. When they become entrepreneurs and it begins to 
operate, there is this loan forgiveness. So suddenly they go into a 
program where they are $17,500 less debt on their balance sheet. An 
enormous act, an enormous piece of advantage.
  I am also thinking about--this is not directly to the entrepreneurs, 
but to home buyers. That student loan prevents people from buying a 
home because it shows up on their balance sheet and they are not able 
to get on with it.
  I really like what Secretary Clinton is proposing here because it 
goes along with what you and I and many of our colleagues see as an 
impediment to economic growth and individual growth in our Nation.
  Mr. TONKO. I think that, certainly, there is no denying that the 
training of the workforce of the future requires all sorts of insertion 
of technology, hands-

[[Page H5079]]

on, cutting edge, perhaps ahead-of-the-curve sort of mentality applied 
in the classroom, and that can happen when we invest and invest 
appropriately.
  You talk about the Secretary's plan--Secretary Clinton's plan. I 
believe she extends that beyond business. It can be social enterprise 
also, so you can help distressed communities with these startups and 
everybody wins. It's an across-the-board win situation. And, you know, 
it is the kind of focus we need for that front end of life, for that 
early-in-professional-development stages of our economy on the age 
spectrum scale.
  To your point, there also needs to be compassion expressed and 
concern expressed for the opposite end, for the more senior in our 
society. And you and I have seen what investments are required there, 
including those for caregivers who provide respite for what is a 
growing phenomenon there with Alzheimer's in the senior elements of our 
society.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly. We have been talking about students, some of 
whom are young, some not so young, and others who are carrying those 
student loans. But if you begin to look at the totality of society, and 
if we care about each other and about what is happening in our 
communities, we come to the more senior years, and immediately we find 
that seniors are faced with a host of issues. One of the issues--and I 
am glad you brought this up--is Alzheimer's and dementia.
  Let me show you something that we developed here. This is a graph of 
the cost of Alzheimer's in our society. It is growing very, very 
rapidly. You can see right now we are spending somewhere around $236 
billion a year on it. And as the population ages, which is part of the 
baby boom, and the fact that we are all going to get older, we figure 
by 2050 that we will be spending $1.3 trillion a year to deal with 
Alzheimer's. It is an extraordinary burden and it is probably one that 
will bust the bank, the Medicare bank, and the Medicaid bank.
  We know that these costs are shared largely by the Federal Government 
and by individuals and families. In my own family, my mother-in-law was 
a victim of Alzheimer's, and she spent her last 3 years of her life in 
our home and we were able to care for her, but that is unusual.
  For most families, it is a burden that cannot be afforded, so that 
cost then comes to the Medicare and the Medicaid program. In fact, the 
single biggest expense in Medicaid is dementia and Alzheimer's. This is 
one where we are faced with an enormous challenge, but it is a 
challenge that actually may have a solution.
  Let me put up another chart here before we get to that issue of how 
to deal with this. This is one that deals with--the cost of caring for 
seniors with Alzheimer's will increase nearly fivefold by 2050, and 
here we have broken down the cost, Medicare and Medicaid, $1.1 trillion 
in 2050 and the extraordinary rise. But the burden for the Federal 
Government becomes awesome and, frankly, probably unaffordable.
  Can we do something about it?
  I think so. And this takes us back to what we were talking about 
earlier, about the universities and about research.
  Let me just put this up very quickly.
  What happens when we invest in research?
  Well, let's take a look at what we do invest in research. We know, 
for example, that for cancer we are investing about--Federal government 
dollars now--$5.5 billion a year for cancer research. This is through 
the National Institute of Health.
  For HIV/AIDS, somewhere near almost $3 billion a year. For 
cardiovascular problems, a little over $2 billion a year.
  For Alzheimer's, it is now about $900 million a year. So we were able 
this last year--in 2015-16 budget year, we were able to increase from 
$560 million to just under $1 billion. So we have ramped up.
  We thank President Obama for putting that in his budget, and for all 
of our colleagues, Democrat and Republican, for approving that 
additional funding for research.

                              {time}  2000

  But what does research mean? What does it mean when we actually 
research these illnesses? It is incredible. One very quick chart here 
will show you what happens when we invest in research.
  I know, Mr. Tonko, this is a big issue in your district. It is a big 
issue--not just the illness, but the research, because New York is one 
of the great research centers.
  Deaths from major diseases, 2000 to 2013. So what has happened with 
breast cancer? We have seen a small decline in breast cancer deaths. 
Prostate cancer, we have seen an 11 percent decline in prostate cancer 
deaths; heart disease, 14 percent decline; for strokes, 23 percent 
decline; for HIV/AIDS, a 52 percent decline. What is that decline a 
result of? Obviously, better medical care, but also research.
  So what has happened with Alzheimer's? Remember that we were 
investing basically at one-tenth of what we invest in cancer and one-
fourth of what we invest in heart disease. For Alzheimer's disease, we 
have seen a 71 percent increase--not a decrease in the number of deaths 
but, rather, an increase in the number of deaths. So as we ramp up the 
research, will we be able to see this kind of reduction in deaths? 
Well, we would hope so. But what we do know is that if we are able to 
delay the onset of this terrible illness, quality of life will be 
better, and the cost to the public and to families will decline.
  I know, Mr. Tonko, that in your area, while your family may not have 
been directly affected by Alzheimer's, I know that you are seriously 
interested in it because you see it in your community as I do in mine.
  Mr. TONKO. Right. Absolutely. I see it. It is the walk taken by many, 
many families that I represent. I have to share with you that it has 
touched my family also. So it behooves all of us to be there in this 
universal format to speak to what is a growing, growing problem.
  I was struck by the dollar figures you shared and the bankrupting of 
our situation with Alzheimer's and student loans. We are driving--we 
are driving such heavy burdens on to all of us as a society that it 
challenges us to come forward with some order of prevention and some 
order of hope that will be driven into the efforts that we currently 
share to speak more wisely and speak more compassionately to these 
situations.
  I am reminded that the brain is the least researched organ of the 
body. Now, that alone should speak to us forcefully. Think of not only 
Alzheimer's but the many neurologically based situations that affect 
numbers of people out there from the very young to the more senior, the 
most senior. The brain, as an organ, needs to be researched, and so we 
need to make certain that we share that message here in the halls of 
government. Let's bring the hope to the doorstep of individuals who are 
rendered hopeless at times, who see their loved ones crumble and become 
someone different. We know that we can invest in that research and that 
we do have the minds that can lead us in those research attempts and 
efforts.
  When we look at the budget for Alzheimer's, less than one cent of 
every dollar invested in speaking to and treating Alzheimer's disease 
is spent on research. We had put together legislation a couple of 
sessions ago now that require that we have these Alzheimer's townhalls 
and put together a plan as a nation to speak to conquering the effects 
of Alzheimer's. It meant that we have to have certain orders of 
budgeting done to speak to Alzheimer's.
  Then we further improved upon that with legislation that said that 
this budget is not going to be put together with its guidelines in an 
ordinary process. It was going to bring in the clinicians and the 
professionals who speak to the Alzheimer's issues as a disease, and 
they will put together this professional budgeting that will tell us 
from now to 2025 what that budget will be, what the demands on the 
system should be.
  So that, again, renders a budget that is speaking to the soundness of 
numbers for the investment made to conquer Alzheimer's. I think that is 
the professional approach to be taken. It is the compassionate approach 
to be taken.
  Now we are working on issues, on legislation, that will allow for 
coverage, Medicare coverage, for planning

[[Page H5080]]

when you, as an individual, and better said, as a family, are impacted 
by Alzheimer's, let's do the planning. What should we expect? How do we 
walk through this with the greatest amount of dignity and 
effectiveness? That planning will be covered if this legislation were 
to be approved.
  So there are things we can do here. It really is a challenge, I 
believe, in these times to make certain that research dollars are 
available that will, again, study the organ in the body that is least 
researched, Representative Garamendi. I know that, by pushing our 
colleagues who share our beliefs on this issue, we can get it done.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you so very much for bringing up the 
Alzheimer's Accountability Act. The new money that goes into it, this 
additional 300-plus million dollars bringing it up to some $900 million 
a year is accountable. There are specific plans that are needed; there 
is a mechanism to prioritize the expenditures--all of those things. So 
it is not just money that is going to be thrown out there.
  I am also reminded that this issue is one that is a brain issue, 
obviously, but that is an issue that affects our soldiers who have got 
PTSD, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress syndrome, all of 
those things for our veterans who have come back, which, again, is an 
issue of the brain. If we are studying Alzheimer's, we will also be 
studying those issues.
  About 3 years ago now, in the National Defense Authorization Act, we 
enacted a provision that required the Department of Defense, as it goes 
about dealing with these terrible problems that the veterans have with 
post-traumatic stress or the other brain injuries, coordinate their 
work with other brain researchers. So we really need to understand that 
we have one mind, one human brain, and the research will go at it from 
different symptoms and different diseases, but it is still dealing with 
the brain. So the sharing of knowledge is a part of what this 
accountability act will bring forward to us.
  We have challenges. We have many, many challenges, and this issue of 
Alzheimer's that was in the omnibus bill last year and our Republican 
colleagues, our Democratic colleagues, all alike faced with this issue 
in their families and their communities, voted in support of this 
legislation. So this is not a partisan issue. This is a human issue and 
an American issue. It is one that we can deal with, and we really do 
have the money to do it.
  Mr. TONKO. I think, too, it speaks to the priorities, again, that we 
need to carve into the budget work that we do. We make a statement with 
the budget. We identify with the great public, the great many of us, as 
to what we believe are those champion issues and what we need to take 
into concern first and foremost. While we may have cast this into 
opposite ends of the age spectrum, what really strikes me is, when the 
Alzheimer's advocacy community comes to Washington on their given fly-
in day, every year you hear of numbers going lower and lower in the 
population, so that you begin to wonder: Is this genetics, is it 
geriatrics, or is it environmental? What is driving it? But lower and 
lower creeps the age.

  Mr. GARAMENDI. The early onset.
  Mr. TONKO. When some of the early onset occurs.
  So, again, it affects all of us in a way that, while you may research 
Alzheimer's or dementia in a broader sense, it unlocks the door to 
untold possibilities of discovery, genetic discovery, whatever it might 
be, gene therapy, gene awareness that might come about that speaks to a 
plethora of issues that affect the brain.
  So many, many are graced with the opportunities of research. We as a 
nation can partner--the private sector, academia--with the public, with 
the government. It is the message that I hear as a contrast, government 
isn't an enemy force. Our domestic investment has shrunk in many ways. 
We need to ramp up the opportunities for hope, for discovery, for 
intellectual capacity, and for achieving our dreams. We can do that by 
this concerted effort to do it with our eyes wide open and with a sense 
of morality driven by the heart-filled and soulful attempts to really 
adjust our framework to go to those issues that require the partnership 
of our government.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. As you talk about partnerships, I'm thinking about 
many of the partnerships that do exist already and those that could 
exist. This brain research, Alzheimer's, and other brain issues are 
researched around the world. There is an organization that I am 
familiar with in California that one of our friends from the Napa 
Valley started, a program called the One Mind Institute. Our former 
colleague, Mr. Kennedy, is part of that organization. We have one human 
brain, and if we could pull together the research from all around the 
United States and all around the world so that there is a sharing of 
information, perhaps we will get to some knowledge much, much faster.
  So I am really heartened by the effort that the Congress has made 
thus far to almost double the research for Alzheimer's. I look forward 
in this month of September as we put together our appropriations, which 
hopefully we will, or even a continuing resolution, that we would keep 
in mind that this is an area where money could be well spent.
  We make choices here in Congress, and I just want to lay out, as I 
prepare to close, and then if you would also, Mr. Tonko, among the 
choices we make is one that I deal with on my committee assignments. I 
am on the House Armed Services Committee, and I am on the Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee. Strategic arms mean nuclear weapons. I just am 
troubled--deeply, deeply troubled--by what we are in the process of 
doing here in the United States as well as Russia, China, and perhaps 
other places around the world in rebuilding our entire nuclear arsenal.
  If you take all of the various things that are involved in that 
nuclear arsenal--the rockets, the bombs, the submarines, the airplanes, 
and all the command and control systems--in the next 20 years, 25 
years, we will spend $1 trillion--$1 trillion--on that whole system. I 
just often think what if we were to spend just a small portion of that, 
maybe $1 billion a year or $2 billion a year of the $1 trillion on 
brain research, what would it mean to American families? What would it 
mean to families around the world? There is not going to be a family in 
this world that doesn't suffer from this Alzheimer's thing if they live 
long enough.
  So we make choices here, and I wrestle with those choices. But in 
this particular case, the choice is clear. I prefer to spend some 
portion of that money on this Alzheimer's issue and on the students 
and, therefore, on the very important future of this Nation. That would 
be my choice, and hopefully our colleagues and the American public 
would see the wisdom of that.
  Mr. Tonko, would you like to close?
  Mr. TONKO. Yes. I again thank the gentleman from California for 
bringing us together this evening for discussion on what I believe are 
very high-priority items that face us in this Congress. I think it is 
important for us to speak with that anecdotal evidence and to put a 
human face on all of these discussions. We talk about illnesses like 
Alzheimer's, dementia, and neurologically based issues. There is also 
an issue of the illness of addiction that can be benefited; it can be 
responded to by research.
  So my pledge always to my district and, similarly, their request of 
me is to provide for that human empathy, provide for those stories, the 
countless stories of individuals who walk the journey that is so very 
difficult and how they could be assisted simply by the burning sense of 
hope that we can address, that we can bring to their lives, this focus 
and this commodity of hope that provides them the extra energy and the 
ability to walk their journey, walk straight through the bit of 
difficulty that faces them.

                              {time}  2015

  We are a great Nation. We can be made even greater by our intellect 
investing in research, investing in student loan reform, and investing 
in Alzheimer's, a disease that can bankrupt the system. These are wise 
choices driven by human compassion and responded to, I hope, with a 
passion that you hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi), and that all of us need to embrace as we walk this journey 
together and make certain our government is an effective government 
responding wholeheartedly to a given cause.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York

[[Page H5081]]

(Mr. Tonko), my friend and colleague, for the passion and commitment he 
has to his people and to the American people and beyond.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________