[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1472-1475]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           PEOPLE ARE WORRIED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, today is Tuesday, January 31. It has 
been 11 days since the inauguration of our new President; and, oh my 
goodness, has it been an extraordinary 11 days. I just hardly know 
where to begin.
  Normally I come up here, and we talk about how we can grow the 
American economy, how we can provide jobs, how we can see a return of 
our manufacturing industries, but I am compelled today to pick up 
comments on the last 11 days.
  I was at a dinner out in California on Friday evening, and a wide 
variety of people from multiple interest groups were there: some labor 
unions, some farmers, senior citizens, healthcare folks, teachers. 
There was an overwhelming sense of concern--deep concern--about the 
direction this country is going. Some of these friends of mine were 
Republicans and others were Democrats; some liberal, some conservative.
  But to a person, they came up to me and said: Oh, my God, what is 
happening in Washington? Where is this going? What is he doing? What 
does it mean to us?
  And some of them said: Will they really actually terminate the 
Affordable Care Act? Is ObamaCare really going to end? What about my 
insurance policy; will I lose it? I am on Medi-Cal. What will happen to 
me?
  And teachers saying: How does this fit with the effort to improve our 
schools?
  And some that had been in the military looked at some of what was 
going on and said: But veterans' care, this hiring freeze affects the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. What does it mean to me? What is 
happening in Washington?
  Some others were concerned about, well, there is going to be this 
transportation bill, infrastructure bill. How are they going to fund 
it? Is it really going to happen?
  I have been to many events in my years in public office, but I have 
never been to an event in which there was this overwhelming concern 
about what's going to happen in Washington.
  I have seen changes occur. Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, there was 
concern, but not the kind of angst, deep emotional concern about where 
this country is going. I have seen George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton, 
and I am sure there were many Republicans concerned about where Bill 
Clinton would go, and then Clinton to George W. Bush, and then to 
Obama, but nothing like this.
  It is not just last Friday night. Today, in front of my office in 
Davis, California, 200 people showed up to say: You have got to do 
something. You have got to make it clear that we can't have these 
shutting down our borders. You can't let them do that. Davis, 
California, the University of California, there are 5,000 foreign 
students and teachers on that campus. There are more than 200 from the 
countries that are affected by the immigration and by the ban on people 
coming in from those seven countries. What does it mean, they asked me? 
And what about the Affordable Care Act?
  All across this Nation people are demonstrating. It is now 20 minutes 
to 7 here in Washington, D.C., and I suppose at 8 tonight the President 
is supposed to give a nationwide address on his next Supreme Court 
nominee. I am quite certain that tomorrow morning there will be another 
eruption of concern by Americans as to what does it mean if the Supreme 
Court throws out the role of the Federal Government in protecting voter 
rights? What does it mean if the Federal Government isn't there to 
assure that a woman's body is her own?
  All across this Nation people are going: Oh, what is happening?
  Executive order after executive order, starting with the repeal of 
the Affordable Care Act and instructions to every agency of the Federal 
Government to stop it, see that it doesn't work. And here in Congress, 
a budget resolution that calls for the elimination of the financial 
support for the Affordable Care Act which, if you remove the money, 
what happens to the subsidies, the tax subsidies that people are able 
to use to be able to afford healthcare insurance, the additional money 
that goes to the States for their Medicaid programs?
  And, oh, what about the seniors? If that budget resolution actually 
goes through, the money that is in the Affordable Care Act to provide 
the seniors the opportunity to have their drug benefit costs reduced, 
affecting millions of American seniors, the money is gone. Will the 
drug benefit be gone also? Most assuredly it would unless, of course, 
you want to just increase the deficit.
  And about that free annual visit that is available to seniors that 
has clearly extended the life of thousands or tens of thousands of 
seniors because they find out they have high blood pressure. They can 
take a cheap pill, get that blood pressure down and not have a stroke. 
Or maybe diabetes, the onset of diabetes. That free annual benefit 
checkup, will it still be available if the budget resolution and if Mr. 
Trump's attack on the Affordable Care Act actually happens?
  People are worried. People are frightened. And they should be. They 
should be. Because this goes to the very ability of Americans to carry 
on their tasks, protections that are necessary to protect Americans 
from fraud. The House of Representatives today voted to pass a rule 
that would lead to the elimination of protections that Americans have 
in their financial services. I don't know how we repeal the Affordable 
Care Act.
  And how are we going to protect America by building a wall? What is 
it going to cost? 15, 20, 30 billion dollars?
  Most people who look at the immigration issue rationally would say it 
is not going to solve the problem. And besides that, the problem is 
dramatically reduced as a result of the Mexican economy growing and 
jobs being available there as a result of the enormous

[[Page 1473]]

build-up that has already occurred with the Border Patrol and the 
immigration service. We have seen a dramatic reduction.
  I was told today by some people that work in this field in California 
that the people who are coming into the United States illegally are 
mothers and children from Central America who are seeking refuge from 
the horrible gangs and violence in Central America. They are not 
sneaking over the border. They are presenting themselves at the border 
as refugees. We will come back to the refugee issue in a few moments.

                              {time}  1845

  How proud he looks, signing yet another executive order, this one on 
a wall. We are going to build a wall, 1,400 miles of wall between the 
United States and Mexico. So with a look of pride, he wants to spend 
anywhere from $15 billion to $30 billion. So tell me what you could do 
with $15 billion. That is the minimum cost of the wall. Most people say 
it is probably closer to $30 billion.
  What could you do with $15 billion? Well, I suppose you can build 
part of a wall, or you could start to build a wall. You are certainly 
not going to finish it. But let's just say you have got $15 billion and 
that is your down payment on a wall that most everybody says wouldn't 
work. That is not a joke. If you build a 50-foot-high wall, someone 
will get a 51-foot-tall ladder.
  I am familiar with the universities in California. California State 
University has 460,000 students. So for $15 billion, you could fund the 
entire California State University system, provide tuition-free 
education for 3 years for 460,000 students, and pay all the faculty and 
the janitors and all the others. That is for $15 billion.
  Now, if it is a $30 billion wall, then it is 6 years. So a junior in 
high school, for $30 billion, could go free, tuition free, all expenses 
paid. Every professor, every janitor, fully paid for 6 years--460,000 
students and thousands upon thousands of professors, teachers, 
janitors, et cetera.
  Or you could replace every pipe in Flint, Michigan, 270 times over. 
Do you want to solve the problem in Flint, Michigan, the lead pipe 
problem? 270 times for $15 billion, or that is more than 500 times, 540 
times.
  Or maybe you are concerned about Alzheimer's. And what American 
family is not concerned about Alzheimer's? If we were to spend that $15 
billion on research, we would undoubtedly be able to develop a 
treatment--and this is what the scientists and doctors and researchers 
say. And we did increase the funding from around $500 million to just 
under $1 billion last year. But if you were able to ramp it up and 
develop that treatment for Alzheimer's, you could delay the onset of 
Alzheimer's in your family, or mine, by 5 years. And what does that 
mean? It means about a $220 billion in savings to the American 
taxpayers because that is money that will be spent for Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  Or maybe you are just interested in national defense. Do you like 
submarines, the new Virginia class submarine? Well, let's see. We could 
build five of them. Or maybe you like aircraft carriers. For $15 
billion, you could build one of the new aircraft carriers and an 
additional submarine.
  So President Trump, what is our choice? You don't like these choices, 
and you want to build a wall that nobody believes will do much good 
dealing with illegal immigration?
  Oh, I like this next one; 27,777 4-year, full-ride scholarships for 
an undergraduate program at the University of California. That is about 
the total undergraduate population at the University of California, 
Davis, which I have the honor of representing.
  But we are going to build a wall. We are going to build a wall. For 
what purpose? 435 of us here and 100 Senators and one President have a 
task of making choices about what America is all about, choices about 
how we spend your tax money. You want your tax money spent on a wall?
  Oh, excuse me. Mexico is going to pay for it. Do you think so?
  The President has started a trade war with Mexico, has created a 
serious diplomatic crisis with our neighbor and our third largest 
trading partner, over trying to force Mexico to pay for his wall. Oh, 
that was really smart. But, hey, he's the President and he thinks he 
can do what he wants to do. Well, the Mexican President said, no, no, 
it is not going to be paid for by Mexico.
  So who is going to pay for it? I say we have choices. I would much 
rather us spend our money on education, national defense, Alzheimer's, 
and on things that actually help Americans in so many different ways. 
That is just one of the issues that is in play.
  Immigration? Oh, we put out a new executive order on immigration, and 
seven countries around the world cannot have their citizens any longer 
come to America for some period of time, and refugees from those 
countries can't come to America. What are those countries? Well, let me 
see. Among the seven, I believe there is this country called Iraq.
  Excuse me, Mr. Trump. Isn't Iraq our ally in fighting ISIS? I think 
so. It is their troops plus 6,000 of our troops that are now engaged in 
a bitter fight to reclaim Mosul, to wipe ISIS out of Mosul. And so you 
are going to put a limitation on Iraqi citizens and refugees coming to 
the United States? I am sorry. I don't understand what sense that 
makes, Mr. President. Do you? Do you understand what you just did?
  There is a four-star general in Iraq who is responsible for their 
Special Forces that are leading the fight in Mosul right now. This 
man's family came to the United States for safety because of the 
problems that existed there in Iraq. He cannot visit his family. Unless 
there is some sort of a waiver that has suddenly been developed for 
four-star Iraqi generals, he cannot go to Central Command in Tampa, 
Florida, to work on a strategy for the rest of the fight.
  Oh, my God. What is going on here? What is happening? What sense does 
any of this make? Foreign policy experts, national security experts, 
experts on ISIS, on radical Islam all say the same thing. The ban on 
people traveling from those seven majority Muslim states will have a 
negative effect on our ability to deal with ISIS. That is what they 
say. Not my view, that is the view of security experts all across the 
spectrum, from the most conservative to the most progressive and 
liberal and everybody in between. This makes no sense whatsoever, Mr. 
President.
  We sometimes use the word ``half-baked.'' This is not even beginning 
the process of being baked. This was put together by somebody that 
didn't know what they were doing. If they had consulted with policy 
experts outside of that little cabal in the White House, somebody might 
have said: Time out, time out, time out. Let's think this through. Why 
Iraq?
  What is going to be the second step here? Easy enough, we are going 
to set the ban. But what does it mean? What does it mean to Muslim 
countries around the world that suddenly America is seen as shutting 
the door--or, shall we say, slamming the door--on Muslims? What does it 
mean here in the United States? It means that we are not safer. It 
means that our country is not protected, and, in fact, the action taken 
is counterproductive. That is what it means.
  Who did this? Who is the architect of this policy? Was it the State 
Department? Apparently not. Was it the Justice Department? We know from 
the midnight firing--well, I guess it was actually 6 o'clock firing--
yesterday of the acting Attorney General that it wasn't the Justice 
Department. They had an opportunity to review and look at the legality 
of the ban. They didn't involve themselves, and apparently the military 
didn't involve themselves.
  So who was it that dreamed up this ban on men, women, children, 
refugees coming from seven countries?
  None of the residents and refugees from those countries in the last 
40 years has been responsible for one terrorist death in the United 
States. But those countries from which we know the terrorists came, 
from 9/11, were not included.
  Saudi Arabia, not included in the ban. How is that, if we are worried 
about this problem of refugees who are

[[Page 1474]]

citizens from those countries coming into the United States to carry 
out terrorist acts? Why didn't you look at Saudi Arabia? That is where 
most of the 9/11 folks came from. Or maybe Chechnya or Congo or 
Nigeria.
  So who wrote it? Who is responsible? Well, two names have emerged. 
One, a Mr. Miller, and another, a Mr. Bannon, a Mr. Bannon who is the 
architect of the emergence of the alt-right. We are not talking about 
the conservative right. We are talking about the far right White 
nationalist movement in this Nation.
  Mr. Bannon, who became Mr. Trump's campaign chairman, who is now the 
key person in the White House, not just on political policy, but on 
national security policy. He is said to have said, in 2013, that he is 
a Leninist and his goal is to blow up the system. He says he doesn't 
remember having said that. Well, I will take him at his word. But I do 
know that what he did with this ban for these seven countries is to 
make our Nation less safe. That, we know.
  And just to double down on this issue of this superconservative 
fellow Mr. Bannon and his cohort Mr. Miller, just to make clear where 
we are headed, there has been a reorganization of the National Security 
Council. These are the men and women that, over the years, have been 
responsible for making certain that our American policy maximizes our 
security that deals with international issues of great concern: what to 
do about China in the South China Sea, what to do about North Korea. 
How do we handle missile defense? How do we deal with Russia in the 
Ukraine? The National Security Council.
  So what happened yesterday? Well, the President, which he has a right 
to do, reorganized the National Security Council. And two gentlemen, or 
two people, that have traditionally been on the National Security 
Council, who seem to know a little bit about national security, were 
previously in what is called the principles. These are the handful of 
people that meet with the President, the key national security leaders.

                              {time}  1900

  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is one of them and the 
Director of the National Intelligence organization--the two of them.
  The President says: I don't need you in my little inner circle. Go 
away. You can be part of the larger thing, and when I want you, I will 
call you.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the person responsible 
for the collection of our national intelligence--push him aside.
  Who came in to take the place of the two people--the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence? Guess 
who? Mr. Bannon. Is he a national security expert? He spent a few years 
in the military decades ago, but now he is sitting as one of the 
principals on our National Security Council. What is his mindset? Read 
his history. I wouldn't recommend you go to Breitbart--I wouldn't spend 
a whole lot of time on that--but there is a history here. There is a 
history, and it is a dangerous history.
  This man is now sitting as the principal voice, because he has the 
President's ear, on the National Security Council--the fellow, together 
with Mr. Miller, who is responsible for the ban on immigrants, 
travelers, and refugees from seven countries, which has become a major 
international, diplomatic crisis. ISIS is already using that ban--it is 
right here in the newspaper--to recruit in the Middle East, to recruit 
in Africa, and to encourage homegrown violence and terrorism here in 
the United States.
  Well done, Mr. Miller.
  Well done, Mr. Bannon.
  And very bad for our country.
  We are in the midst of executive orders, one after another--often two 
a day. My final concern is one that comes up 25 days from now. Five 
days ago, Trump went over to the Pentagon and signed yet another 
executive order. He came out of the meeting and said: We are going to 
have a new war plan. We are going to wipe ISIS from the face of the 
Earth, and the Pentagon will deliver to me in 30 days a war plan to 
wipe ISIS off the face of the Earth.
  Action. Action. Action.
  Go with care. Be slow to war.
  We will see what that plan is. My guess is it will cost millions upon 
millions--if not billions--of dollars. It will put our troops--boots--
back on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and we will start the cycle one 
more time. We will see. We will see what the Pentagon comes up with in 
a war plan. We have not been told the specific instructions that the 
Commander in Chief has given to the Pentagon; but I will tell you that 
this member of the House Armed Services Committee is very concerned. 
Keep in mind that our effort against ISIS and al Qaeda is based on a 
2001 authorization to use military force in Afghanistan against al 
Qaeda and related entities. It has been stretched.
  One of the things that I am quite concerned about coming out of the 
Obama administration is that that administration stretched the 2001--a 
16-year-old--authorization to use force--a declaration of war against 
al Qaeda--to justify the American military actions in Iraq, Syria, 
Liberia, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
  We will see what the war plan is--we will learn soon enough--and I 
suspect that this Congress will be asked to finance it. We will be 
asked to pay for the men and women who will be sent into harm's way and 
for the munitions and the airplanes and the other equipment necessary.
  I would hope that all of us take a long, long look at this and that 
we ask this question: If we do that, then what happens next? We didn't 
ask that question when we went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002. 
We didn't ask that question when we invaded Iraq a couple of years 
later. I am not sure we have asked that question as we reengage 
ourselves in the current Iraqi war and Syria; but we should always ask: 
What is the result of our action? What is likely to happen?
  We have choices. We have choices to build a wall or to educate our 
children or to care for our seniors. We have choices about war or not. 
We have choices about how we deal with people around this world, 
choices about what we do with refugees--people who are fleeing 
persecution, fleeing death--who are doing the very, very best they can 
to care for their families and children in the most desperate of 
situations. We have a choice. We can slam the door on them and say 
``tough luck,'' or we can do what ought to be the American tradition, 
and that is to provide comfort, to provide assistance, and to show the 
good part of America.
  Mr. President, you have given us 10 days of the most disruptive chaos 
I have ever seen in my many years in public life. You have a choice, 
too, Mr. President. You have a choice to take a deep breath, to not try 
to carry out every one of your campaign promises, most of which I think 
were ill-founded. You don't have to do it on day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 
8, 9, 10. You can take a deep breath, and you can think, together with 
Mr. Bannon or with Mr. Miller or with, perhaps, somebody outside of 
your little inner circle.
  Mr. President, you might ask other people what is the effect of what 
you are doing. Think about the second level of effect, and slow it 
down, and be aware that there are consequences. For every action, there 
is going to be another reaction. We are already seeing that. I am sure 
you have seen the millions of Americans in the streets protesting about 
which you have thus far done. Continue on, and you will see more 
because Americans are concerned. They are frightened.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor). Members are reminded to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I know the courtesy of this House, Mr. Speaker, and we 
are not supposed to direct our remarks everywhere; so let me amend my 
remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, there are within the White House two individuals who I 
believe are responsible. So, Mr. Speaker----

[[Page 1475]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman is not recognized for debate.

                          ____________________