Congressman John Garamendi joins other local officials
at the Highway 12 groundbreaking in Napa.

NAPA, CA – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), a former Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, today joined a number of local officials, including Congressman Mike Thompson and Assemblymember Mariko Yamada, at the Highway 12/Jameson Canyon Road groundbreaking in Napa County. The Highway 12 Widening Project, helping to further link Solano County to Napa and Sonoma counties, will make transit easier for travelers and commuters in Northern California.

"Today we celebrate an important transportation project that will create area jobs and make travel easier and safer for thousands of Northern Californians," Congressman Garamendi said. "I would note that the federal government was a partner in this project to the tune of $7.8 million."

"Investments in transportation are a vital part of America’s budget, and that’s why it’s critically important that the House of Representatives pass the Senate’s bipartisan Surface Transportation Act," Garamendi continued. "Too many jobs depend on reliable transportation; I hope Republican leadership in the House stops playing politics with our roads, bridges, and public transportation."

"As we consider new transportation projects moving forward, I will continue to advocate for stronger Make It In America policies that make sure these investments create as many good American jobs as possible," added Garamendi. "We cannot abandon manufacturing – the backbone of America’s middle class – and transportation provides an opportune chance to use the power of the federal government to help American workers."

Last month the Senate passed a fully funded, two year, bipartisan transportation bill (74-22) with 22 Senate Republican’s signing on in support. This bill would address needed investments in America’s aging transportation infrastructure for the next two years, supporting both highway and transit projects. Congressman Garamendi is an original co-sponsor to the House version of the Senate transportation bill, H.R. 14, "Moving Ahead for the 21st Century" (MAP-21) introduced by Representative Tim Bishop (D-NY).  The House leadership had an opportunity to bring H.R. 14 (MAP-21) to the floor, creating thousands of jobs and addressing Americas transportation needs, but reverted back to their "my way or no highway" agenda.

Congressman Garamendi is the author of the Airports, Highways, Trains and Transit: Make It In America Act (H.R.613), which would create good American jobs by setting stronger Buy America standards for goods and equipment purchased with federal dollars for airports, highways, trains, and transit.
 

Originally published in the Sacramento Bee.

The House Republican budget is devastating to America's fragile recovery and to middle and working class families.

This is a budget that preserves billions of dollars in Big Oil subsidies while slashing education investments nearly in half, that gives the average millionaire an extra $150,000 windfall in tax giveaways while gutting nearly half of the federal government's commitment to Medicaid, and that makes it easier to ship jobs overseas while destroying over a million American jobs in transportation, research, health services and other vital sectors.

While the immediate pain in this budget is callously severe and counterproductive, the worst is yet to come. Let's not mince words: With time, this plan would end Medicare.

I served as California's insurance commissioner for eight years. To keep health insurance cost-effective and sustainable, you need a broad pool of enrollees. You need many more healthy people paying into the system than unhealthy people using services.

The great miracle of Medicare is just how cost-effective and popular it remains despite the fact that its primary patient pool – people 65 and older – are more likely to require frequent and costly medical services.

Indeed, over the last 30 years, per-consumer spending in Medicare has grown at a slower rate than private insurance.

Medicare is cost-effective through low administrative costs, a reliance on science-based medicine, and the purchasing power of the largest patient pool in America. Most doctors can't afford not to see Medicare patients, and it's in this power by numbers that one of the most at-risk pools of patients in America has held onto good affordable health coverage for more than four decades.

A year ago, Republicans in Congress voted repeatedly to end Medicare and replace it with an underfunded coupon system. After months of unrelenting criticism, they realized just how toxic this proposal was and ended their frontal assault on this popular and efficient program.

This year, House Republicans have wised up a bit and are pursuing the death of Medicare through more subtle means. They insist they're not eliminating Medicare this time around – just making it optional. They insist seniors can choose between using a capped coupon to purchase private insurance or stick with traditional Medicare.

What they won't tell you is that this plan will entice millions of healthy seniors to flock to private junk insurance plans, where slightly lower premiums will be offered at the expense of actual quality care when they get sick, and this plan will entice the wealthiest Americans to abandon Medicare and purchase gold-plated coverage. This will undermine most of the features of Medicare that make it an affordable option for American seniors:

1. The broad pool of patients will begin to evaporate.

2. The enrollees that remain will be less healthy on average.

3. The combined purchasing pool of the Medicare system will be markedly weakened, and more doctors will abandon Medicare.

4. The doctors who remain in Medicare will be overburdened, frustrating remaining Medicare patients and further incentivizing departures to for-profit plans.

5. Public support for Medicare will decline precipitously as fewer Americans are invested in the system, as the system becomes less cost-effective, and as fewer doctors accept Medicare.

Make no mistake, if this plan ever becomes law, it will mark Medicare's death by a thousand coupons. Seniors remaining with traditional Medicare will pay more as private insurers siphon off the healthiest and youngest among them. Seniors purchasing private insurance will also shoulder more of the cost of medical care as the value of their insurance coupon declines over time.

If the goal is to improve Medicare or make the system more cost-effective, there are plenty of options available to us that don't destroy it. We can let Medicare directly negotiate drug prices. We can encourage competition that would drive down the price of medications by letting Medicare import prescription drugs from Canada and other countries with high safety standards. We can continue electronic records modernization. We can expand efforts to crack down on Medicare fraud. And instead of increasing the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 like the House Republican budget calls for, we can lower the age of Medicare eligibility, bringing more healthy Americans into the system.

But let's talk brass tacks. Congressional Republicans aren't trying to improve Medicare. Because of an extreme ideology out of step with most Americans, they see Medicare as part of the problem. They're going to great lengths to end Medicare, and I hope they never succeed.

SACRAMENTO, CA – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), California's former Lieutenant Governor and Insurance Commissioner, today joined Secretary of State Debra Bowen at a joint oversight hearing of the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments and the Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting.

They highlighted the risks of disenfranchising vote-by-mail voters if 14 post office mail processing centers are closed in California after a moratorium on closures expires on May 15th. The closures could cause substantial mail delays and lead to thousands of vote-by-mail ballots arriving after Election Day. Garamendi is joining Secretary of State Debra Bowen in calling for a six month extension of the moratorium on mail processing center closures to make sure that every vote is counted in 2012.

"Don't radically alter mail delivery expectations in a year that could very well set vote-by-mail records in California. Don't close down these centers in the lead up to a presidential election, giving voters, elections officials, and postal workers insufficient time to work out the kinks," Garamendi said at the hearing. "Don't disenfranchise tens of thousands of Californians who just want their voices heard. Give us six more months to get through this election, and after six months, once the chaos of the election settles down, we'll have enough time to make the best of a bad situation. Democracy is too important to penny pinch."

Today Congressman Garamendi also sent a letter to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy urging their support for Congressional action to prevent mail processing center closures.

"We are a nation that takes voting rights seriously. We are a nation that believes democracy is worth paying for. I oppose the closing of these facilities because they help make representative democracy possible," Garamendi wrote in the letter. "I hope you'll join me in preventing voter disenfranchisement by using the powers of this Committee and the United States Congress to prevent further mail processing center closures until after the November 2012 elections."

Congressman Garamendi's letter to the House committees and prepared testimony before the legislative committees is included below.

In Yuba, Ventura, and Monterey counties, the closure of mail distribution centers there increased the time required to mail ballots from 1-to-3 days to 5-to-7. Gail Pellerin, president of California's County Clerks Association, said postal cutbacks had delayed ballot delivery and were a major reason some vote-by-mail ballots have gone uncounted. In the last statewide primary election, more than 12,500 mail-in ballots in Riverside County were almost invalidated because they arrived after Election Day through no fault of the voters. This delay was the direct result of a "change in process" in mail delivery. Only through a judge's order were the votes counted. By law, late ballots aren't supposed to be counted, and a postmark is insufficient.

In the June 2010 statewide primary, 58 percent of all votes came through the mail. In the November 2010 general election, a record 4.9 million vote-by-mail ballots were cast.

Congressman John Garamendi's Prepared Testimony on Mail Processing Center Closures and Vote-by-Mail Voter Disenfranchisement

Joint Oversight Hearing of the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments & the Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting

March 13, 2012

Good afternoon. Chairman Fong, Chairman Correa, Vice-Chairman Donnelly, Vice-Chairman La Malfa, and other esteemed members of the Assembly and Senate Elections committees, thank you for having me here today to speak about an issue of profound importance – the risk of voter disenfranchisement caused by changes at the U.S. Postal Service. I'm also honored to be joined today by our wonderful Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, who has been a tireless advocate for voting access in California.

Throughout our history, great Americans have fought – and sometimes died – to secure our voting rights. Since the founding days of our nation – when patriots exclaimed the great rallying cry "no taxation without representation" – we have been a nation that has aspired to live up to the ideal that government must be responsive to the people.

From the first Constitutional Convention onward, generations of Americans have worked tirelessly to make sure that America the nation lives up to America the idea. When our country was founded, with few exceptions, the only Americans that could vote were white male property owners. It would take six decades before property ownership was finally removed as a prerequisite to vote in all states.

Twenty years later, following a bloody Civil War, the 15th Amendment was enacted into law, formally giving all adult male citizens the right to vote. As we all know, the fight to prevent the disenfranchisement of African Americans and other minorities would take more than a century , with violent intimidation, poll taxes, literacy tests, and Jim Crow laws keeping blacks away from the voting booths in many states until the federal government finally intervened.

Women wouldn't be granted the right to vote in all states until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. Native Americans didn't have the right to vote in federal elections until 1924. Young adults under the age of 21 finally gained the right to vote in 1971, under the idea that if you could be sent to war on behalf of your country, you should at least have a vote to help determine whether we should be at war in the first place.

We have come a long way. While there is still work to ensure equal access to the polls, there is no doubt that we have made tremendous progress.

Given how much we value voting rights, given how much we detest voter disenfranchisement, given how much we look back with scorn at people who told fellow Americans, "your vote won't be counted today," we must do all we can to make sure that no voter is disenfranchised.

Today we're here to discuss a decision by the U.S. Postal Service that threatens to disenfranchise tens of thousands of California voters, not based on race or sex or age or property status, but based on geographic proximity to mail processing centers and the desire to vote-by-mail.

If lawmakers don't act and act soon, 14 mail processing centers in California will shut their doors sometime after May 15th. Thousands of Californians will lose their jobs and businesses and households throughout California will see delays in the mail they receive and the mail they send. That's bad enough.

But Secretary of State Bowen, elections officials throughout the state, and postal workers warn us that this timeline will cause significant delays in ballot delivery. Tens of thousands of Californians could be disenfranchised.

In the last statewide primary election, more than 12,500 mail-in ballots in Riverside County were almost invalidated because they arrived after Election Day through no fault of the voters. This delay was the direct result of a quote "change in process" unquote in mail delivery, and while the votes were ultimately counted, it took a judge's order to make it happen. By law, late ballots aren't supposed to be counted, and a postmark is insufficient.

In Yuba, Ventura, and Monterey counties, the closure of mail distribution centers there increased the time required to mail ballots from 1-to-3 days to 5-to-7. Voters have an intuitive understanding of how long it takes to mail something. When these expectations wind up being off by days, voter disenfranchisement can result. Indeed, Gail Pellerin, president of California's County Clerks Association, said postal cutbacks had delayed ballot delivery and were a major reason some vote-by-mail ballots have gone uncounted.

Millions of Californians will cast ballots in November, and many will be vote-by-mail. In the June 2010 statewide primary, 58 percent of all votes came through the mail. In the November 2010 general election, a record 4.9 million vote-by-mail ballots were cast.

Voters shouldn't have to rely on a judge's order to make sure their votes are counted. Voters living busy lives shouldn't be expected to know that everything they've ever known about mail delivery is suddenly not true in the days leading up to an election. Voters should expect that if they vote-by-mail as they've done for years, their vote will be counted. Voters deserve a say in who represents them in local, state, and federal government.

Our elections officials and voters will be able to adapt to the changes at the post office, but they need time. It is outrageous that the post office is considering these drastic changes in California mail delivery in the run up to a presidential election.

Secretary of State Bowen comes to us today with a reasonable request to the United States Postal Service. You want to eliminate these mail processing centers? Fine. We don't like it, but we'll adapt.

But don't radically alter mail delivery expectations in a year that could very well set vote-by-mail records in California. Don't close down these centers in the lead up to a presidential election, giving voters, elections officials, and postal workers insufficient time to work out the kinks. Don't disenfranchise tens of thousands of Californians who just want their voices heard. Give us six more months to get through this election, and after six months, once the chaos of the election settles down, we'll have enough time to make the best of a bad situation. Democracy is too important to penny pinch.

Through generations of struggles, we've reached a point in America where almost every adult citizen who wants to vote can vote. We've eliminated most barriers to voting, and almost every American has ingrained in them the idea that race, sex, creed, and ethnicity should never be used as an excuse to deny voting rights.

What does it say about the greatest and wealthiest country on this planet if we manage to end overt voter disenfranchisement based on discrimination and begin voter disenfranchisement based on just being too damned cheap?

I'm working in Congress to see if there's anything we can do to keep these mail processing centers open for six months. I urge you, honorable members of the Assembly and Senate, to join Secretary of State Bowen and me in this fight to make sure our constituents are able to participate in our democracy. The California legislature can send the powerful message to Washington that these mail processing center closures in the lead up to an election are unacceptable. We are a state that takes voting rights seriously. We are a state that believes democracy is worth paying for.

Thank you for your time and thank you Secretary of State Bowen for bringing this issue to our attention. I am available for any questions.

Letter to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy

March 13, 2012

Chairman Darry Issa
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Rayburn 2157
Washington, DC 20510

Chairman Dennis Ross
House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Rayburn 2157
Washington, DC 20510

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Rayburn 2471
Washington, DC 20515

Ranking Member Steven Lynch
House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy
Rayburn 2471
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, Chairman Ross and Ranking Member Lynch,

Throughout our history, great Americans have fought – and sometimes died – to secure our voting rights. The right to vote is paramount in our representative democracy, allowing citizens to choose who amongst their fellow Americans will speak for them in government.

It is this fundamental right that is now in jeopardy because of post office mail processing center closings this year. My fellow Californians depend on the mail to deliver their votes in a timely manner.

I stand with California's Secretary of State Debra Bowen in delaying the closure of mail processing facilities until at least after the November 2012 elections. The United States Postal Service (USPS) plays a vital role in California's electoral process. Nearly 6 million Californians voted by mail in 2008 presidential election. In the June 2010 statewide primary, 58 percent of all votes came through the mail. In the November 2010 general election, a record 4.9 million vote-by-mail ballots were cast.

The USPS has closed four processing centers in the state since 2008 and plans to close 14 more. County registrars say the closures already have had an effect. Secretary of State Bowen states that mailed ballots took from five-to-seven days to arrive at county election offices during last year's local elections in areas that lost distribution centers, rather than the normal one-to-three days. The President of California's County Clerks Association, Gail Pellerin, said postal cutbacks had delayed ballot delivery and were a major reason some vote-by-mail ballots went uncounted during elections last year. President Pellerin said she has noticed that some voters have begun using private package companies such as FedEx to overnight their ballots.

The people of California must have their voices heard. The closure of mail processing centers before the November 2012 election will silence tens of thousands of our fellow Americans in California alone.

We are a nation that takes voting rights seriously. We are a nation that believes democracy is worth paying for. I oppose the closing of these facilities because they help make representative democracy possible. I hope you'll join me in preventing voter disenfranchisement by using the powers of this Committee and the United States Congress to prevent further mail processing center closures until after the November 2012 elections.

Sincerely,

John Garamendi
MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Congressman Garamendi testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on H.R. 3702, the Due Process Guarantee Act (video linked here)

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on his legislation H.R. 3702, the Due Process Guarantee Act. Senator Feinstein is the sponsor of an identical companion bill in the Senate, S. 2003. The Due Process Guarantee Act would make sure that all United States citizens and legal permanent on U.S. soil must be charged or tried and cannot be indefinitely detained. A video of his testimony is linked above and here. A copy of his prepared remarks is included below:

Congressman Garamendi's Statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee On "The Due Process Guarantee Act: Banning Indefinite Detention of Americans"

Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Grassley, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before your committee on the Due Process Guarantee Act. Congress must speak in a clear unwavering voice when the liberty of individuals is at stake.

Chairman Feinstein, thank you for your leadership on this issue. The Due Process Guarantee Act provides clarity in an area where Congress and the American people cannot afford to have ambiguity. Congress, as the maker of this nation's laws, must always tread carefully when the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution are at issue. We must leave no uncertainty when it comes to the rights of the American people.

We must clarify existing law to guarantee the Due Process rights of every American are protected. It is a foundational principle of our great nation that we are all innocent until proven guilty and that we all deserve a fair trial.

The FY 12 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) came too close to infringing those rights. It is not a perfect piece of legislation but our service members must have the tools they need to get the job done. The Act does that.

There is much that is necessary in the NDAA. It includes a 1.6 percent pay increase for our troops, keeps TRICARE affordable, and includes needed anti-mine and anti-IED technology. This legislation puts personnel first and does right by Travis Air Force Base and other bases in Northern California.

More than a decade removed from the horrible events of September 11th, terrorists are behind bars and dangerous plots have been thwarted. The world knows that America will no longer tolerate safe havens for Al Qaeda. But we don't need to sacrifice our civil liberties and subvert the constitution for security.

Unfortunately, the NDAA comes too close to doing just that. Before and after passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) there was concern among Members of Congress, and people from all walks of life, including the military and law enforcement community, that the language in the bill left open the possibility that U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents could be indefinitely detained without charge or trial.

President Obama, the Secretary of Defense, and the Directors of the CIA and FBI, along with the Chairman who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee all oppose indefinite detention. Those who receive the most up to date intelligence, sit at the highest levels of our government-some of whom have served both Republicans and Democrats, believe that we do not need this policy to keep us safe.

President Obama was so concerned with the language in the NDAA that he wrote a Presidential Signing Statement about the detainee provisions stating that "I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

While I take President Obama at his word, subsequent administrations will not be bound by his Signing Statement. The law itself must be absolutely clear. That is why I chose to introduce H.R. 3702 the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 in the House. This bill states unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens arrested inside this country without trial or charge.

The bill amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971 by providing that a Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) does not authorize the indefinite detention—without charge or trial—of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents who are apprehended domestically. In addition to the AUMF, the bill also states that a declaration of war or a similar act by the Executive or Congress does not abridge this right.

The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 codifies a "clear-statement rule," that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority when it comes to U.S. citizens and lawful residents. The clear statement rule is a cannon of statutory interpretation in which Congress clarifies an area of ambiguity or possible ambiguity by stating in the clearest terms possible its intent. Congress must speak in a clear unwavering voice when the liberty of individuals is at stake. As we know from the dark moments in our past, where there is ambiguity in the law, abuses at the highest levels of the government can occur.

Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Grassley, I thank you for allowing me to testify before this subcommittee. I look forward to working with you, Congressman Landry, and my colleagues in both the House and Senate from both sides of the aisle, who wish to bring clarity to this important issue. The American people deserve no less when our liberty is at stake. Let's keep America safe and free.

 Click here for video of the speech. "Col. Davis's candid testimony reinforced my own conviction that there is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, only the prospect of continued shedding of American blood in a war that is not ours to fight"

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressmen John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA) and Martin Heinrich (D-Albuquerque, NM), members of the House Armed Services Committee, today introduced H.R. 3702, the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011. The bill clarifies U.S. law by amending the Non-Detention Act of 1971 to ensure that within the United States, U.S. citizens and permanent residents cannot be detained indefinitely without trial. It is companion legislation to Senator Dianne Feinstein's Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011.

WASHINGTON, DC – Today the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that 2.5 million young adults, aged 19 to 25, now have health coverage thanks to the Patient's Bill of Rights, which is part of the health care reform law. Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), California's Insurance Commissioner for eight years, was proud to help lead the fight for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which includes a provision that allows young adults under the age of 26 to join their parents' health insurance plan. Because of the Affordable Care Act, the percentage of young adults with health insurance rose from 64% to 73%.

"The Affordable Care Act is creating a healthier America, as 2.5 million young adults can now attest," Congressman Garamendi said. "Allowing young adults to join their parents' health plan is also a great relief for loving moms and dads. I should know. My daughter is one of the 2.5 million young adults now insured through this important policy change."

"Earlier this year, my Republican colleagues voted to repeal the Patient's Bill of Rights," added Garamendi. "Just so we're clear, if the Tea Party has their way, these 2.5 million young adults would lose their health care coverage. 2.5 million sons and daughters, possibly your own, would once again be one broken arm, one infection away from bankruptcy, delayed treatment, or worse. So long as I'm in Congress, I will fight to prevent that injustice from happening."

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, welcomes a crucial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report, which will keep the MC-12 surveillance aircraft program in the Air Force and at Beale Air Force Base. The Conference Committee Report, which constitutes compromise legislation between the Senate and House versions of the NDAA, rejected a Senate proposal to transfer the MC-12 program to the Army. This legislative victory follows a letter that Garamendi sent last week to the Congressional Armed Services Conference Committee, urging them to follow the Department of Defense’s recommendation and maintain the program with the Air Force.

Congressman Garamendi’s letter comes after an earlier successful effort led by Garamendi and other Congressional representatives in California to locate the mission at Beale Air Force Base. Congressman Garamendi also joined Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Congressman Wally Herger, and other Members of Congress this week in a bipartisan bicameral letter expressing support for keeping the MC-12 program in the Air Force.

"I commend NDAA conferees for arriving at the commonsense conclusion that we should avoid costly disruptions and keep the MC-12 program where it’s already working – with the Air Force," said Congressman John Garamendi.

"The missions at Travis and Beale Air Force Base are essential for maintaining a smart 21st century military that is highly mobile and equipped with the very best intelligence," Garamendi added. "The men and women at Travis and Beale are top flight. I am committed to the future success of these missions, which bolster our regional economy and are critical to our country’s national security."

Congressman Garamendi’s complete letter to the Conference Committee is included here and below. The previous letter to bring the MC-12 program to Beale is here. The bipartisan bicameral letter urging the Conference Committee to keep the MC-12 program is here.

Congressman Garamendi’s Letter to the Conference Committee

Dear Chairmen Levin and McKeon and Ranking Members McCain and Smith:

As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I urge you to omit from the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) any provision that removes the MC-12W Liberty aircraft from the Air Force.  Any such provision, such as the one included in the Senate version of the NDAA that would transfer the MC-12W to the Army, would directly contradict a joint-recommendation made by Air Force Secretary Donley and Army Secretary McHugh that the MC-12W remain within the Air Force.  As the Secretaries point out in the enclosed letter, the MC-12W is a proven intelligence system that is relied upon daily to identify, track and locate terrorists, and that transferring the MC-12W would be disruptive to ongoing operations.  Thus, ceasing to maintain the MC-12 within the Air Force would undermine intelligence collection and our national security. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request and your continued work to ensure a strong national defense.

Sincerely,
JOHN GARAMENDI
Member of Congress
 

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), California’s Insurance Commissioner for eight years, today is pleased to hear the announcement from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that more than 2.65 million Medicare recipients saved more than $1.5 billion in 2011 for prescription drugs, an average of $569 per person. Meanwhile, premiums remain stable in the system, and more than 24 million seniors have received a free annual physical or other medical screening – free procedures made possible through the Patient’s Bill of Rights, which is part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"The Patient’s Bill of Rights is making quality health coverage more affordable for millions of seniors, with significant prescription drug savings and free preventative health screenings," Congressman Garamendi said. "This is good new for every American who hopes to retire with dignity, and it’s only possible because President Obama and Democrats in Congress were willing to take the tough votes necessary to improve our health care system."

"As a former Insurance Commissioner, I was proud to help lead the charge to pass the Patient’s Bill of Rights, because I’ve seen what happens when the insurance industry sharks are allowed to run amok without proper oversight," added Congressman Garamendi. "While we were able to improve Medicare, my Republican colleagues are determined to destroy it. They voted to replace Medicare with an underfunded coupon system. As long as I’m in Congress, I’ll do all I can to protect Medicare benefits and stop this assault on seniors’ retirement security."

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), a former Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, today applauded Transportation Committee Ranking Member Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia) for introducing H.R. 3533, the Invest in American Jobs Act, a bill that strengthens 'Buy American' requirements for federally funded infrastructure projects. The legislation is similar to Congressman Garamendi's H.R. 613, the Airports, Highways, High-Speed Rail, Trains and Transit: Make it in America Act, which was introduced in 2010 and again in 2011.

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, six Members of Congress sent a bipartisan letter authored by Congressmen John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA) and Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena, CA) to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, commonly referred to as the "Super Committee," urging them to "maintain the current revenue sharing for counties as it pertains to geothermal receipts."

Members joining in the call to preserve geothermal energy revenue sharing include Representatives Mark Amodei (R-Carson City, NV), Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma, CA), Shelley Berkley (D-Las Vegas, NV), and Bob Filner (D-San Diego, CA).

The Representatives joined in the call to promote energy independence and preserve this vital source of revenue for the counties that produce geothermal energy. A copy of the letter is linked here and included below.

"Geothermal energy is a crucial clean resource for creating jobs and securing our energy independence," said Congressman Garamendi. "It is in our economic and national security interests to make our energy in America, which is why it’s critical for the federal government to continue cultivating an environment for geothermal development."

"The geothermal energy produced in California’s counties is not only good for our environment, it reduces our dependence on foreign oil and helps our economy by spurring green job creation," said Congressman Thompson. "The best way to reduce the deficit is by creating jobs because more jobs means greater revenues and less need for government assistance.  If a community invests in developing geothermal energy they deserve to get their fair share in returns. I am strongly against cutting counties’ share of geothermal revenue because that means cutting jobs, crippling future green job growth, and stifling our economic recovery – all of which will only make our deficit larger."

"Geothermal royalties are extremely important to Lake County and it is absolutely essential that the federal government continue allocating a portion of these revenues to counties in order to help mitigate the local impacts of geothermal development," said Kelly Cox, Lake County Administrative Officer. "Congressman Thompson's leadership on this issue has been outstanding. He and Congressman Garamendi completely understand why it would be wrong to take these revenues away from counties. Their continuing efforts to protect our community's interests are very much appreciated."

"Geothermal energy brings jobs and growth to Nevada with 20 plants in operation providing clean, reliable electrical capacity to the grid and significant additional capacity under development," said Congressman Amodei. "Given the important role of the counties in the development of this domestic energy source, it's only proper that they should share in the revenue of the federal receipts." 

"These geothermal receipts provide an important source of income for Imperial County, in my district. By promoting geothermal development and investing in renewable energy, we can create jobs for Americans!" said Congressman Filner.

"Geothermal not only provides vital clean energy to power homes and businesses, it also creates good jobs in Nevada and I strongly support the continued expansion of this industry.  At a time when counties in my home State are struggling to fund schools, public safety and other essential services for families, we must protect revenues from geothermal production that are now shared with local communities.  Repealing the provision that provides these critical local dollars from geothermal royalties will only hurt county governments -- whether in Nevada or other states -- by limiting the resources they have available for economic development to create more jobs and to provide for the needs of those who call the towns and cities in these areas home," said Congresswoman Berkley.

"Geothermal energy is exactly the kind of renewable resource we should be investing in to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and point the way toward a sustainable future," Congresswoman Woolsey said. "I join my colleagues in urging the Super Committee to preserve these subsidies, which support green jobs and help localities continue delivering vital services."

---

The Honorable Patty Murray
Co-Chair, Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
448 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Jeb Hensarling
Co-Chair, Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
129 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairwoman Murray and Chairman Hensarling:

We are writing to request that the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction maintain the current revenue sharing for counties as it pertains to geothermal receipts.  

In the bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress decided that because of the high burdens geothermal production places on the counties where geothermal development is located, these counties should share in the revenue of the federal receipts.   In turn, counties have used these revenues to pay for critical governmental services, such as road maintenance, public safety and law enforcement, and conservation easements.  This revenue sharing has also made counties vested partners, and ultimately champions, in the continued development of geothermal energy—a clean, renewable, and domestic energy source.

There have been numerous proposals to discontinue geothermal revenue sharing for counties, including a provision in the President’s Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction. We are strongly opposed to this provision.  Ending the geothermal revenue sharing plan would have a significant negative impact on our districts, while the overall effect on our nation’s fiscal well-being would be miniscule.  Many of the counties that receive revenue from geothermal receipts are small, rural counties facing precarious budget situations.  The loss of such revenue for these counties could result in the elimination or reduction of essential services. As such, we urge you not to include the repeal of geothermal revenue sharing with counties in any final agreement you may reach.

We appreciate your attention to this issue and look forward to working with you as you prepare your deficit reduction plan.

Sincerely,
 

On the House floor today, Congressman Garamendi explained how President Obama’s American Jobs Act would help employers hire veterans.
 

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield), a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, today stood with veterans by voting for the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011, S. 894. The bill would increase compensation payments for disabled veterans and their families by 3.6 percent. The bill now heads to the White House for the President’s signature.

Congressman Garamendi said the following:

"Every day, veterans who have fought valiantly for our country overseas return home and have to fight for a job and a home to live in.

"This bill, which increases the rates of disability compensation for veterans, comes as much needed relief for many veterans who are struggling to get by during these trying times.

"While this bill is welcomed, we can do better in fulfilling our obligation to these brave men and women. Over 877,000 American veterans are unemployed, through no fault of their own. I call on my colleagues in Congress to do more. President Obama’s American Jobs Act offers companies smart incentives to hire veterans, and it deserves passage right now."
 

The American Jobs Act includes a new Returning Heroes Tax Credit of up to $5,600 for firms that hire out-of-work veterans and a Wounded Warriors Tax Credit of up to $9,600 for firms that hire veterans with service-related disabilities.

Leading up to Veterans Day on November 11, Congressman John Garamendi will host a Veterans Resources Fair on Thursday, November 10 at Dixon High School, 555 College Way in Dixon, Calif. The Congressman hopes that all veterans and their family members will attend to learn about additional services for which they may be eligible. View more information on the Veterans Resources Fair here.

Resources for service members, veterans, and their families are available here: http://garamendi.house.gov/resources/veterans.shtml.
 

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), a former University of California Regent and California State University Trustee, today praised President Obama for announcing a landmark executive order easing the burden of student loan debt on students. The plan expands on Congressional Democrats’ student loan reform plan passed last year.

Under the plan, some students will be able to consolidate their loans into a single government loan, pay less per month based on income, and have loans forgiven earlier. The initiative is part of the President’s "We Can’t Wait" plan, following nearly a year of Republican obstructionism in Congress.

"I’ve spoken to dozens of recent graduates in my district, and they all say the same thing: there are very few jobs available for them, and the ones that exist aren’t paying well," Congressman Garamendi said. "Our country is weakened when we have an entire generation of graduates saddled with debts they can’t afford to pay back. President Obama is wise to offer relief to Americans with excessive student loan debt."

"Ask most business owners in America what they need most right now, and they’ll tell you they need customers," Garamendi continued. "This initiative will help boost demand in our economy precisely when we need it. Instead of paying off interest that goes into the banking ether, thousands of young adults will have more money available to make purchases that will help small businesses grow and hire new workers."

The President’s "Pay As You Earn" plan to cap monthly payments will allow 1.6 million students to:

• Pay no more than 10 percent of their income toward student loans, instead of the current 15 percent. This policy was scheduled to go into effect in 2014 following passage of the Democratic student loan reform bill last year, but President Obama is accelerating the program to 2012; and
• Have student loans forgiven after 20 years, compared with the current 25-year-limit.

Approximately 5.8 million borrowers have both a Direct Loan (DL) and a Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) that require separate payments, making the borrowers more likely to default. By allowing these students and recent graduates to consolidate their loans, borrowers could see up to a 0.5 percent reduction in their interest rates.

Student loan debt is expected to surpass $1 trillion this year. On average, students who graduated this year left with about $27,000 of debt.
 

Thursday, November 10
4:00 – 8:00 PM
Dixon Unified High School
555 College Way
Dixon

WASHINGTON, DC – At Thursday's House Armed Services Committee hearing on "The Future of National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11," Committee Member Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA) mentioned a matrix his office compiled of proposed Defense savings offered by experts across the political spectrum. Today Congressman Garamendi released the list to the public at the request of both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress and staff.

"Congress will have some tough choices to make in the weeks ahead, and clearly Defense spending is on the table. This matrix of possible Defense Department savings is compiled from proposals made by Think Tanks ranging from the far right to the center and the far left. It can help us find responsible defense savings to reduce the deficit while ensuring America's national security," Congressman Garamendi said.

Garamendi added, "Safeguarding the sustainability of our nation's prosperity and security, while remaining true to the values that characterize us as Americans, calls for a focused, disciplined, and agile military.  It also requires a strong and unshakeable economy and a well-informed and supportive citizenry."

"We in Congress have a responsibility to be good stewards of the public trust, treasury, and national defense," Garamendi continued. "I am not suggesting I support all these proposals. I do, however, want to make sure we use the best available information to make strategic budget choices that will strengthen our nation's prosperity and security."

The matrix is available here. Recommendations analyzed include reports from the Sustainable Defense Task Force, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)'s Back in Black Plan, the Center for American Progress, the CATO Institute’s A Strategy of Restraint, the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission, and The Center for a New American Security.

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Fairfield, CA), California's Insurance Commissioner for eight years, today is happy to report that one year after the Patient's Bill of Rights in the Affordable Care Act went into effect, millions of Americans are benefiting from the improved coverage and lower costs provided by the Act.  

The Patient's Bill of Rights became effective for all new plans beginning September 23, 2010. Now, one year later, all Americans with private health plans are receiving the protections of the Patient's Bill of Rights.

"As California's Insurance Commissioner for eight years, I've seen firsthand how, if left unchecked, the rapacious greed of insurance companies can destroy lives and bankrupt families. Two million Americans every year suffer from bankruptcies caused by our profit driven health care system. That's why in one of my first acts as a Member of Congress, I was proud to vote for the Patient's Bill of Rights," Congressman Garamendi said. 

"While there is always room for improvement, let there be no doubt: Americans, including seniors, young adults, women, and small business owners, today have access to much better and more affordable health coverage because of the Affordable Care Act."

Under the Patient's Bill of Rights, if you are one of the 165 million Americans with private insurance, you are now receiving the following protections:  

• You can no longer be arbitrarily dropped from coverage by your insurance company simply because you get sick or become pregnant.

• Your insurance company can no longer place a lifetime limit on your coverage.

• Your insurance company can no longer place low annual limits on your coverage.

• If you are under age 65 and in a new plan, you are now receiving free key preventive services.

In addition, because of the Patient’s Bill of Rights: 

• If you are a young adult, you can now stay on your parents' health plan until your 26th birthday, if you do not have coverage of your own.  Because of this provision, one million additional young people have gained coverage over the last year.

• If you have a child under age 19, they can no longer be denied coverage by an insurance company for having a "pre-existing condition."  Up to 17 million children with pre-existing conditions are now protected from discrimination.

In addition to the Patient's Bill of Rights, the Affordable Care Act also provided new Medicare benefits for America's seniors, which became effective on January 1, 2011.  These new Medicare benefits include the following:

• Seniors are now receiving a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs when they are in the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' coverage gap.  Nearly 1.3 million seniors have already received the discount.

• Seniors are now receiving free key preventive health services, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, under Medicare.  Nearly 19 million seniors have already received one or more free preventive services.

• Seniors are now receiving a free Annual Wellness Visit under Medicare.  1.3 million seniors have already taken advantage of the new free Annual Wellness Visit.

Garamendi has consistently held the line on retirement security and student aid, and he is satisfied the legislation protects Social Security, Medicaid, and Pell Grants and avoids cuts to Medicare benefits. He is disturbed that Congressional Republicans insisted on deep cuts to environmental protections, food safety, and some services to help struggling families – cuts Garamendi believes will impede America’s recovery.

"This debt limit deal is not great policy, but it avoids default and protects Social Security, Medicaid, and Pell Grants," Garamendi said. "It also protects Medicare benefits. At least now seniors in my district will still get their Social Security checks, and Medicare and Medicaid are secure."

"America is less than a week away from easily preventable default – leading to recession, hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, and an interest rate spike – and House Republicans are playing brinkmanship with legislation that has zero chance of becoming law," said Congressman Garamendi. "If the President and this Congress were delusional enough to support this radical legislation, we would be right back here in six months with an even worse default crisis in an even more polarized political environment. Congressional Republicans need to stop playing games and start walking back from the abyss."

"This legislation even includes a proposal that gives a mere third of Members of Congress veto power over all revenues. Under this bill, it would be easier to eliminate Medicare than to end subsidies for Big Oil. Minority rule has cost California thousands of jobs and led to painful and pointless cuts to In Home Supportive Services and nursing homes for seniors, drastic increases in tuition, and significant reductions in teachers, police, and firefighters," Garamendi added. "Congressional Republicans now want to spread the pain nationally. This plan would destroy Medicare and gut Social Security and Medicaid/MediCal, and I will not stand for it."

Congressman Garamendi supports ongoing negotiations to pass a debt limit solution that includes smart revenues and targeted cuts. Garamendi would also support a clean debt limit vote to avoid catastrophic default. If a resolution cannot be reached with fringe Republicans, Congressman Garamendi would support President Obama if he chose to use the 14th Amendment to honor the full faith and credit of the United States.

"We need to Make It In America, not Destroy It In America. It’s time we moved on from this GOP-manufactured crisis and developed a short term strategy to put people back to work and a strategy over the coming decade to responsibly reduce the deficit. Let's reach a reasonable bipartisan compromise or pass a clean debt limit bill as has been done dozens of times before," Garamendi continued.

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA), today voted against one of the most ideologically extreme pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress – legislation that brings America dangerously closer to defaulting on its obligations. H. R. 2560 seriously threatens the ability of the federal government to honor the full faith and credit of the United States by requiring Congressional passage of a so-called “Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment” as a prerequisite to raising the debt ceiling, even though we are only weeks away from reaching the debt limit.

"I’ve been in public service since the 1970s, and I’ve seen some really bad bills, but H.R. 2560 is probably the most radical legislation I have ever seen introduced with the support of a party’s leadership," said Congressman Garamendi, who previously served as California’s State Senate Majority Leader. "This legislation is designed to create an easily preventable and Republican-orchestrated crisis with the debt limit – taking the full faith and credit of the United States hostage – as an excuse to destroy Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, food safety, and every federal service that helps strengthen seniors, students, and the middle class."

H.R. 2560 creates a false choice between the federal government defaulting on its obligations now or ending the government’s commitment to protecting Medicare, Medicaid/MediCal, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food program, financial aid, and energy and transportation investments. The radical Republican legislation also makes it essentially impossible for the federal government to ever raise revenues, even to close loopholes or reduce oil subsidies.

"This bill requires a two-thirds supermajority in both the House and Senate to ever increase revenues, making it much easier to destroy Medicare than to end subsidies for Big Oil. Giving one-third of the legislature veto power over the treasury has paralyzed California, and now Republicans want to spread the damage nationally," added Garamendi. "This undemocratic and inflexibly dogmatic posture by the Republican leadership in Congress would be comical if the consequences weren’t so catastrophic. In a few months, this job-killing bill would eliminate 700,000 American jobs at a time when almost one-in-ten Americans are out of work through no fault of their own."

The only budget that comes close to meeting the requirements of the constitutional amendments under consideration in this legislation is the Republican Study Committee budget. That plan would eliminate 70 percent of non-defense discretionary funding by 2021, contain deeper Medicare cuts than the budget authored by Republican Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, and eviscerate Medicaid/MediCal. It also would slash food assistance and Supplemental Security Income for the elderly and disabled poor in half by the end of the decade while raising the Social Security retirement age to 70.

H.R. 2560 requires that both the House and Senate must pass a radical GOP constitutional amendment and send it to the states for ratification before the debt limit can be raised. Since passage will never happen, these provisions recklessly bring the country closer to default. Defaulting on U.S. debt would destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars, add nearly $20,000 to the average mortgage, cause interest rates to drastically spike, and lead other countries to begin abandoning the U.S. dollar as their reserve currency of choice.
 

"These NLRB rules would help ensure that both employers and employees have a seat at the negotiating table," said Garamendi. "By averting lawsuits and misunderstandings, these commonsense reforms provide certainty at the workplace and improve labor-management relations. By strengthening the ability of America's industrious workers to freely decide on whether to join a union, this rule strengthens our middle class and helps us to, once again, Make It In America."

If finally adopted after a public notice-and-comment process, the proposed amendments would:

• Allow for electronic filing of election petitions and other documents.
• Ensure that employees, employers and unions receive and exchange timely information they need to understand and participate in the representation case process.
• Standardize timeframes for parties to resolve or litigate issues before and after elections.
• Require parties to identify issues and describe evidence soon after an election petition is filed to facilitate resolution and eliminate unnecessary litigation.
• Defer litigation of most voter eligibility issues until after the election.
• Require employers to provide a final voter list in electronic form soon after the scheduling of an election, including voters' telephone numbers and email addresses when available.
• Consolidate all election-related appeals to the Board into a single post-election appeals process and thereby eliminate delay in holding elections currently attributable to the possibility of pre-election appeals.
• Make Board review of post-election decisions discretionary rather than mandatory.

Congressman Garamendi on importance of ARPA-E
in preparing America for future energy needs.
 

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA), a Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, today introduced an amendment to H.R. 2354, the radical Republican Energy and Water appropriations bill. House Republicans propose slashing more than 80 percent from President Obama’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) appropriations request, endangering invaluable game-changing energy research. Garamendi’s revenue-neutral amendment would have taken money out of a fossil fuel research account instead, but it was defeated by a 145-276 vote.

"Ostriches are supposed to stick their heads in the sand; responsible lawmakers are supposed to help their country compete in a tough global economy. Vital game-changing energy research should be above politics, but today, the Republican majority’s pattern of actively dismantling anything that hints at American-made clean technology continued," said Garamendi, who as a state legislator in the 1970s authored the first alternative energy state tax credit in America. "We need to Make It In America, especially advanced clean energy, but we won’t get there without basic building block research first. Today, a majority of Members in Congress failed the American people."

Proposed by the National Academies in 2006, ARPA-E, modeled after the acclaimed Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program that created the Internet, focuses “on creative ‘out-of-the-box’ transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk but where success would provide dramatic benefits for the nation.”

Garamendi added, "Because of DARPA, we have the Internet and the millions of jobs it supports. ARPA-E is modeled after DARPA and is working to revolutionize energy production, but they can’t power the world, clean our air, create good jobs, and direct our country away from foreign oil when their budget is practically zeroed out. While America dawdles, our competitors in Asia and Europe continue to invest billions in energy research."

ARPA-E focuses exclusively on high risk, high payoff concepts – technologies promising genuine transformation in the ways we generate, store and utilize energy. While the Department of Energy invests in conventional energy research, ARPA-E is not intended to augment these efforts. If just a fraction of the projects funded by ARPA-E are successful in reaching the marketplace, the U.S. will benefit greatly by creating new industries and jobs, making energy technologies substantially more cost-saving and profitable, and accelerating the timeframe for achieving energy and climate goals.

Six ARPA-E projects, amounting to $26 million in federal investment, have already attracted over $100 million in private investment. With its small non-bureaucratic structure, and its high-caliber personnel hired for limited terms from the private sector, ARPA-E is a model of efficiency, speed, and innovation within government. They have reduced standard contracting time by roughly 75 percent. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has highlighted ARPA-E as the new gold standard for hiring talent, reviewing proposals, and contracting.

The panel selected Seo Hyung Lee of Moraga as the overall-winner. Ms. Lee received a free trip to Washington, D.C. to attend an awards ceremony on June 22. Her poster color painting, titled "Escape," will hang in the U.S. Capitol for an entire year.

"Thank you to all participants in this year's competition," said Congressman Garamendi. "This event demonstrates, once again, the remarkable intellectual and creative spirit of the students in our district. Congratulations to Tyler Oliver, Clay Sanders, and Seo Hyung Lee on placing in the competition. I wish to give a special congratulations to Ms. Lee, who has earned her spot in the nation's capital."

1st Place
"Escape"
Seo Hyung Lee
Campolindo High School
Moraga

2nd Place
"The Howler"
Clay Sanders
Campolindo High School
Moraga

3rd Place
"Hand in Hand"
Tyler Oliver
Las Lomas High School
Walnut Creek

Each spring, the Congressional Institute sponsors a nationwide high school visual art competition to recognize and encourage artistic talent in the nation. Since it began in 1982, more than 650,000 high school students have participated.

To learn about last year's Art Competition and to view the winning entries, please visit http://garamendi.house.gov/highschoolart2010.shtml. 

"As a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer, I take our country’s responsibility to protect innocent men, women, and children very seriously. Nearly seven decades ago, the international community made a pledge: never again will we stand idly by and witness the wholesale slaughter of an innocent people. We haven’t always lived up to this standard, as the people of Rwanda can attest, but it is at the bedrock of American values to lend a helping hand where we can when we can. Our limited engagement in Kosovo, where we ultimately prevented a large scale genocide, shows us a way forward.

"In Libya, Colonel Qaddafi pledged to hunt down Libyan dissenters like ‘rats and cockroaches,’ after they demanded a transition to a more representative form of government. Without the limited intervention of a broad coalition of international forces – including the United States, UN, NATO, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Arab League – he would have succeeded. Indeed, the UN Security Council resolution authorizing limited force cited the international community’s ‘responsibility to protect’ the Libyan people.

"President Obama stopped genocide, and in his rush to prevent mass slaughter, his consultation with Congress was limited. Today I voted to grant President Obama the one-year authority he requested to continue our limited operation in Libya.

"To my friends on the left and the right opposed to our action in Libya, I say this: in terms of the human toll, financial burden, and impact on our relations with allies and adversaries throughout the world, Libya pales in comparison to the war in Afghanistan. In Libya, the United States is engaged in a humanitarian mission that received broad international support – with the Arab League supporting for the first time ever an intervention in an Arab country. This conflict has yet to cost us a single American life, and god willing it will stay that way.

"Meanwhile, the conflict in Afghanistan continues to cost America more than $2 billion a week, and this spring was the deadliest spring for American troops since we entered that country nearly a decade ago. Let’s focus on the big picture: targeting Al Qaeda wherever they take root, keeping our troops safe, and where and when we can, preventing genocide and assisting our fellow world citizens as they aspire to form governments that are more representative and more just. I have my disagreements with President Obama on the war in Afghanistan, but I stand with him in the prevention of the massacre of a Libyan people yearning to breathe free."

"When our brave men and women risk so much for our country by fighting overseas, we cannot abandon them once they come back home. It is our duty to provide them with the all the care and resources available so that they can successfully transition to a prosperous civilian life." Garamendi said.
 
Over the past several years, Congressman Garamendi and his Democratic colleagues have supported numerous bills increasing funding and modernizing the way the VA is run in order to provide proper help to veterans. Since January 2007, the Congress will have provided a 70 percent increase in funding for veterans’ health care and benefits which has dramatically increased the VA’s ability to process claims, and open hundreds of new clinics and centers that serve Veterans.

"As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am especially concerned with the work and safety of our service members, but as we ensure that none are left behind at the battlefield, we must remember to care for all veterans once they return," Garamendi continued. "It is a relief to me that on this occasion, Congress was able to put our differences behind to assist the honorable men and women who served in uniform. They deserve our respect and help, which we delivered that with this vote."

H.R. 2055 will provide $58.3 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $1.8 billion over the FY 2011 level. It also provides $14 billion for military construction programs, as well as it continues advance appropriations for VA health care by including $52 billion for FY 2013.

"Greedy Wall Street bankers helped to cripple the American economy during the Great Recession, and now their powerful allies in Congress want to weaken the consumer protections that Congress enacted last year in the Wall Street reform bill," said Congressman Garamendi. "Elizabeth Warren has had the temerity to fight back on behalf of consumers, and for this, she's become a target. She is eminently qualified to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and she's been instrumental in getting the Bureau up and running. For the sake of every American who has ever been ripped off by a financial institution, it's time for the President to appoint Warren to the Director's post."

The letter was organized by House Financial Service Committee Members Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Brad Miller (D-NC), and Keith Ellison (D-MN), while citizen groups Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and CREDO Action submitted the signatures of 250,000 people supportive of Warren's appointment.

The CFPB was created under the Wall Street reform bill (Dodd-Frank) last year, operating with a single director from within the Federal Reserve System. The CFPB will make sure consumers have the full, clear and complete information they need to choose the financial products and services—including credit cards, student loans, and mortgages—that are best for them. Elizabeth Warren first proposed a financial protection body for consumers in this article in 2007. 

"Those who are blocking Elizabeth Warren from even being nominated are members of 'The Financial Crisis Never Happened Caucus'," Rep. Maloney said. "In her role as Assistant to the President since September creating the CFPB, Mrs. Warren has shown her unique skills in traveling across the country and meeting with everyone to be affected by the new body: from bank executives to those with troubled mortgages. She's demonstrated that a regulator must reach out, listen to all sides and decide issues in the public interest. It's time for the President to appoint her to the Director's job—regardless of her misguided Senate opponents."

Rep. Miller said, "This isn't just about Elizabeth Warren. Senate Republicans' threat to filibuster any nominee to head the CFPB is an abuse of their confirmation powers. They had to choose between their constitutional duties and the demands of the financial industry. Their constitutional duties never had a chance."

"Elizabeth Warren has proved to be an effective fighter who puts America first by working to protect the middle-class. Professor Warren knows that our future prosperity depends upon working for the economic interests of the overwhelming majority of our citizens.  Elizabeth Warren needs to be confirmed without further delay," said Rep. Ellison. 

"These members of Congress have seen a quarter-million signatures and received thousands of supportive phone calls from their constituents, asking them to send this message to the White House: Elizabeth Warren is the best qualified candidate to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it's time for President Obama to announce his intention to appoint her," said Stephanie Taylor, PCCC co-founder.

Letter on Elizabeth Warren

June 2, 2011

Dear Mr. President,

We appreciate your leadership last year in supporting the strong financial reforms in the Dodd-Frank bill that responded to the financial meltdown on Wall Street that led to the worst recession since the Depression.  

A key element of that effort was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with the goals of making prices clear, risks clear, making financial markets work for families and particularly protecting service members and their families from abusive financial practices. Since you appointed Professor Warren to "stand up" the bureau, she has laid the foundation as a strong advocate for consumers—something that seems to strike fear among those who are opposed to reform.

Regretfully, Republicans in the Senate have now made it clear that they oppose reform.  They have vowed that they will not allow consideration of any nominee to head the CFPB until the bureau is weakened. They would rather hold your appointment hostage and obstruct the process than make sure consumers have a strong advocate on their side.

Since Republican Senators have said that no one is acceptable unless the law is weakened, we would urge you to nominate Professor Warren as the CFPB's first Director anyway. If Republicans in the Senate indeed refuse to consider her, we request that you use your constitutional authority to make her a recess appointment.  We can think of no better person to be the first Director of this incredibly important consumer financial protection regulator.

Sincerely,

Maloney,         Carolyn

Frank,              Barney

Miller,              Brad

Ellison,            Keith

Bass,                Karen

Blumenauer,    Earl

Capps,             Lois

Capuano,         Michael

Carson,            Andre

Chu,                Judy

Cicilline,          David

Cohen,             Steve

Conyers,          John

Cummings,      Elijah

Davis,              Danny

Davis,              Susan

DeFazio,          Peter

DeLauro,         Rosa

Deutch,           Ted

Doggett,          Lloyd

Doyle,             Michael

Edwards,         Donna

Engel,              Eliot

Eshoo,             Anna

Farr,                 Sam

Fattah,             Chaka

Filner,              Bob

Frank,              Barney

Fudge,             Marcia

Garamendi,     John

Grijalva,          Raul

Gutierrez,        Luis

Hanabusa,       Colleen

Hinchey,          Maurice

Hirono,            Mazie

Holt,                Rush

Honda,            Michael

Jackson,           Jesse

Jackson Lee,    Sheila

Johnson,          Eddie

Johnson,          Hank

Kaptur,            Marcy

Kildee,            Dale

Kucinich,         Dennis

Langevin,        Jim

Larson,            John

Lee,                 Barbara

Lofgren,          Zoe

Lowey,            Nita

Luján,              Ben Ray

Lynch,             Steve

Matsui,            Doris

McCollum,      Betty

McDermott,    Jim

McGovern,      James

Miller,              George

Moran,             James

Murphy,          Christopher

Nadler,            Jerrold

Napolitano,     Grace

Norton,            Eleanor

Olver,              John

Pascrell,           Bill

Pingree,           Chellie

Price,               David

Rangel,            Charles

Richardson,     Laura

Roybal-Allard, Lucille

Ryan,               Tim

Sarbanes,         John

Schakowsky,   Janice

Schiff,             Adam

Sherman,         Brad

Slaughter,        Louise

Speier,             Jackie

Stark,               Pete

Thompson,      Mike

Tierney,           John

Tonko,             Paul

Towns,            Edolphus

Tsongas,          Niki

Van Hollen,     Chris

Waters,            Maxine

Waxman,         Henry

Welch,             Peter

Wilson,            Frederica

Woolsey,         Lynn

Wu,                 David

Garamendi joined a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress, including Representatives Justin Amash (R-MI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX), John Conyers (D-MI), Walter Jones (R-NC), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Tom McClintock (R-CA) in leading the opposition against Section 1034. Their amendment to strip the AUMF language from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) failed by a 187-234 vote.

"Today Congress voted to grant the President limitless authority to declare war without Congressional approval – authority President Obama said he does not need or want. I am saddened that 234 of my colleagues have signed a blank check for any war anywhere," said Congressman Garamendi. "I’m cautiously optimistic that the U.S. Senate has a better understanding of the intent of our Constitution."

Garamendi also supported two amendments related to Afghanistan. One amendment introduced by Representatives Peter Welch (D-VT) and Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), which was based on language Garamendi introduced at the Armed Services Committee two weeks ago, would have removed all troops from Afghanistan not responsible for counter-terrorism. That amendment failed by a 123-294 vote. The other amendment, introduced by Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-CA), would have required the President to provide Congress with a plan and timeframe for negotiations leading to political reconciliation in Afghanistan. That amendment failed by a 204-215 vote.

"With Bin Laden dead, Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan destroyed, and fewer than 100 Al Qaeda operatives left in Afghanistan, we have largely completed our mission in Afghanistan. Spending $120 billion a year to maintain 100,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan’s internal civil war on behalf of the corrupt Karzai government is not the way to keep America safe," said Congressman Garamendi. "I voted today to enhance our national security by insisting we refocus our efforts toward targeting Al Qaeda and other terrorists like a laser wherever they take root."

"While there was much in the NDAA worthy of support, including funding for the noble work being done at Travis Air Force Base and the Livermore national labs, I cannot in good conscience vote for any bill that continues unnecessary warfare," added Garamendi, who was the sole dissenter to the NDAA at the Armed Services Committee hearing earlier in the month. "The people of the 10th Congressional District and the majority of Americans want us to bring the troops home from the longest war in American history, and I do too. I will not – I cannot – back down from my solemn promise to do all I can to end the war in Afghanistan."

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA), a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, today will present his Afghanistan amendment to the House Rules Committee. Garamendi’s amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) calls for a substantial drawdown in U.S. forces in Afghanistan by 2013, with remaining troops shifting away from costly nation-building and toward a targeted counter-terrorism strategy.

Last week, Garamendi introduced a similar amendment at the House Armed Services Committee hearing, where the NDAA was approved by a 60-1 vote, with Garamendi the sole dissenter. Garamendi said at the time that he cannot "in good conscience" vote for any bill that extends the ten-year counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan and needlessly puts the lives of service members at Travis Air Force Base and beyond at risk.

"In the face of an ongoing international terrorist threat and economic challenges at home, it is time to shift from a broad counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan to a laser-like focus on combating terrorists wherever they exist," Congressman Garamendi said. "Maintaining 100,000 troops in a country the size of Texas, at a cost of $10 billion a month, is simply not an effective way to fight a global and decentralized enemy, and drains our resources when we need them most."

"Instead, we must maintain a laser-like focus on Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, tracking them down wherever they try to establish roots, and we must redirect our resources toward building up our own nation, investing in the kinds of programs that will sustain our leadership in the global economy," Garamendi added. "After nearly a decade of war, costing substantial blood and treasure, the U.S. public is ready for this shift. Members of Congress need to be as well."

A complete transcript of Garamendi’s prepared remarks is below.

I want to take five minutes to talk about why we need a policy shift in Afghanistan. I have proposed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would limit our focus in Afghanistan to counterterrorism as opposed to counterinsurgency, calling for a swift and significant drawdown of troops that is consistent with this narrowing of our mission. Other Members are proposing similar amendments. Whichever of these comes to the Floor, the message sent from Congress should be clear: we need to pivot away from this costly nation building strategy and to start bringing our troops home. 

In the face of an ongoing international terrorist threat and economic challenges at home, it is time to shift from a broad counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan to a laser-like focus on combating terrorists wherever they exist. Maintaining 100,000 troops in a country the size of Texas, at a cost of $10 billion a month, is simply not an effective way to fight a global and decentralized enemy, and drains our resources when we need them most. Instead, we must maintain a laser-like focus on Al Qaeda and other terrorists, tracking them down wherever they try to establish roots, and we must redirect our resources toward building up our own nation, investing in the kinds of programs that will sustain our leadership in the global economy. After nearly a decade of war, costing substantial blood and treasure, the U.S. public is ready for this shift. Members of Congress need to be as well.

The killing of Osama Bin Laden marks a critical juncture in our ongoing fight against terrorism, and an appropriate moment for re-evaluating our policy. In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan to eliminate Al Qaeda and to bring to justice those who would maim and kill innocent civilians. Our troops fought bravely and now only 100 Al Qaeda members are estimated to remain in Afghanistan. But this initial military action has turned into the longest war in our nation’s history, while Al Qaeda now expands into places like Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and even the United States. 

Keeping America safe is Congress’s most sacred responsibility, and as a member of the Armed Services Committee I take that responsibility particularly seriously. So we must ask ourselves: Does it advance America’s security to maintain 100,000 troops fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan while Al Qaeda expands throughout the globe? Does it advance America’s security to spend $120 billion a year trying to build a democratic state in Afghanistan while we run up our deficit and cut fundamental programs in our own country? Does it advance America’s security to pour resources into backing the Karzai government in Afghanistan’s civil war while we reduce funding for local law enforcement at home—even when our own CIA has determined that the most likely terrorist threats may be homegrown? The answer to these questions is definitively “no.”

At this turning point in our long struggle against terrorism, it is time to realign our strategy with our goals. Shifting our mission from counterinsurgency to counterterrorism and accelerating the drawdown of U.S. forces from Afghanistan would allow us to achieve the dual objectives of pursuing terrorists wherever they might emerge, and of rebuilding our domestic economy. Both are absolutely fundamental to our national security.  Ultimately, America’s strength depends as much on our economic vitality as on our military might, and spending billions of dollars a week in Afghanistan, not to mention the long-term costs of things like caring for our veterans and servicing our debt, is a form of economic suicide.

This is a pivotal moment in our nation’s history, and a time when decisions by Congress and the Administration will have a major impact on our national security, now and into the future. Defense Secretary Gates recently stated, “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined’.” We need to get our big American land army out of Afghanistan. We owe it to our troops, and we owe it to the citizens we represent, to ensure that not one extra dollar is spent, and not one new life is lost, in an open-ended war that is not critical to our core national security interests.
 

"Roughly two-thirds of Medicaid funding goes to the frail-elderly who have exhausted their assets and are forced to turn to Medicaid to pay for nursing homes," Garamendi and the delegation explained. "The Republican budget that passed the House of Representatives on April 15th (Roll No. 277) turns Medicaid into a block grant system. Under a block grant system, Medicaid will no longer be able to support the elderly. Where will the elderly in nursing homes go? We hope that during your negotiations you will continue to fight against block granting or cutting funding for Medicaid."

"While we agree on the need to address the nation’s long-term deficits, shifting the costs of Medicaid expenditures such as nursing facilities and hospice care onto individuals not only creates excessive hardship on families with aging relatives, it does little to alleviate rising health care costs," they continued. "According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid spending grew significantly slower (4.6 percent) per capita than private insurance premiums (7.7 percent) over the past decade."

The complete letter is here and below. A letter from the California State Association of Counties’ Executive Director on the importance of Medicaid funding was also sent to the President.

Delegation Letter

Dear President Obama:

We are writing to highlight how important Medicaid is for seniors in nursing homes.  Roughly two-thirds of Medicaid funding goes to the frail-elderly who have exhausted their assets and are forced to turn to Medicaid to pay for nursing homes.  The Republican budget that passed the House of Representatives on April 15th (Roll No. 277) turns Medicaid into a block grant system.  Under a block grant system, Medicaid will no longer be able to support the elderly.  Where will the elderly in nursing homes go?  We hope that during your negotiations you will continue to fight against block granting or cutting funding for Medicaid.  We have also enclosed a letter from the California State Association of Counties that echoes our concerns.

The Medicaid program has been an effective partnership between state and federal governments for our most vulnerable by providing services at the most affordable rate.  Although children and parents make up about 75 percent of Medicaid enrollees, they account for less than a third of the spending.  In contrast, the elderly and individuals with disabilities make up about 25 percent of enrollees but about two-thirds of spending.  This translates in California, according to a recent Families USA report, to helping fund nearly 69,000 seniors in nursing homes and providing nearly 517,000 seniors and persons with disabilities with Medicaid home and community service support.  Additionally, the report showed that 23% of seniors and 50% of persons with disabilities in the state of California receive Medicaid funding.

By converting the current Medicaid system into a block grant indexed to inflation and population growth, Congress would shift the burdens of rising health care costs and an aging population onto the states. Within a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, federal contributions to Medicaid would decrease by nearly 35 percent under a block grant system.  According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation report, this would lead to a loss of nearly $122 billion in federal Medicaid funds in California, leading to cuts in benefits and more restrictive eligibility requirements. 

If you sign any such legislation into law, California could see nearly 5 million more uninsured residents by the end of the decade. While we agree on the need to address the nation’s long-term deficits, shifting the costs of Medicaid expenditures such as nursing facilities and hospice care onto individuals not only creates excessive hardship on families with aging relatives, it does little to alleviate rising health care costs. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid spending grew significantly slower (4.6 percent) per capita than private insurance premiums (7.7 percent) over the past decade.

Additionally, changing the Medicaid program now could have negative effects on implementation of health care reform as California counties have been leading the effort in California.  In fact, the waiver they received recently from the Administration should not only expand outpatient care and reduce hospital readmissions, but also produce major savings in Medicaid over time due to changes in how health care is provided.  

We look forward to working with you as we continue to address our long-term deficit issues and preserve our social safety net for those who need it the most.

Sincerely,
Joe Baca
Karen Bass
Xavier Becerra
Howard Berman
Lois Capps
Dennis Cardoza
Jim Costa
Judy Chu
Susan Davis
Anna Eshoo
Sam Farr
Bob Filner
John Garamendi
Mike Honda
Barbara Lee
Zoe Lofgren
Doris Matsui
Jerry McNerney
George Miller
Grace Napolitano
Laura Richardson
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Linda Sanchez
Loretta Sanchez
Adam Schiff
Brad Sherman
Jackie Speier
Pete Stark
Mike Thompson
Maxine Waters
Henry Waxman
Lynn Woolsey

Afghanistan

"The Armed Services Committee voted to continue the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. Because I wholeheartedly support our soldiers and their families, I cannot in good conscience vote to extend a war without an endgame," Garamendi said. "To continue to risk the lives of 100,000 American troops in support of the corrupt Karzai government in Afghanistan’s internal civil war is not in the long-term national interest of the United States."

Congressman Garamendi introduced an amendment to the bill that calls for a substantial reduction in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan by the end of 2013, with remaining troops focused exclusively on counter-terrorism. The amendment was withdrawn, but it is anticipated to be reintroduced on the House floor.

Garamendi added, "With Bin Laden dead, Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan destroyed, and fewer than 100 known Al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan, we’ve completed most of our mission critical goals in Afghanistan. It’s time we brought an end to the war in Afghanistan and targeted Al Qaeda like a laser wherever it takes root."

Local Needs

"If my vote furthers the national debate on the war to the point where even one soldier from Travis can stay home with his family instead of fighting in Afghanistan, I will know that I’ve done what the people of the 10th Congressional District sent me to Washington to do," said Congressman Garamendi. "The brave men and women at Travis Air Force Base and the researchers at the Livermore labs work every day to keep America safe and to create a more peaceful and just world. It is unfortunate I did not have the opportunity to vote for their worthy work in a standalone bill."

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

"The Republican Majority insisted on inserting divisive language in the NDAA delaying the ability of gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly and without fear of retribution," Garamendi added. "Anyone brave enough to don the uniform and risk their life for our country deserves better than to be used as a piñata for cheap partisan points. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a discriminatory policy inconsistent with American values of tolerance, fairness, and equality under the law. When DADT is permanently dumped in the dustbin of history, we will be a better nation for it."

Wasteful Spending

"There are many American priorities reliant on limited resources. Republicans in this Congress have voted to slash Pell Grants, decimate job-creating transportation investments, and destroy Medicare, all under the pretext of paying down the deficit. Al Qaeda has made it clear they intend to strike the United States again, yet this Congress even voted to remove thousands of police, firefighters, and first responders from our streets," Garamendi added. "If we’re going to talk about ‘shared sacrifice’, bloated military contracts need to be on the table. This defense bill includes millions in wasteful Pentagon spending that even the Pentagon doesn’t want. It is immoral to balance the budget on the backs of families struggling to get by while simultaneously letting the special interests with the best lobbyists continue with business as usual."

"Nearly a decade ago we entered Afghanistan to kill Al Qaeda operatives and eradicate their training camps. With Osama Bin Laden dead, the training camps destroyed, and fewer than 100 Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan, we’ve achieved most of our mission critical goals," said Congressman Garamendi. "It’s time we shifted away from fighting an internal civil war and toward focusing on Al Qaeda like a laser wherever it takes root."

Yesterday Garamendi joined eight bipartisan Members of Congress in a letter to the President asking for an end to the war.

Garamendi’s amendment calls for a reduction of 90 percent of troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2013. The remaining soldiers would be focused exclusively on counter-terrorism and training Afghan soldiers and police. Text of the amendment and text of Congressman Garamendi’s prepared statement for the record are below.

Amendment:

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1540 OFFERED BY MR. GARAMENDI OF CALIFORNIA
At the end of subtitle B of title XII of division A of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 12xx. LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN AND RELATED PROVISIONS.
(a) LIMITATION ON FUNDS.—Amounts made available to carry out this Act for military operations in Afghanistan may be used only for purposes of counter-terrorism operations, including—
(1) locating and destroying terrorist cells within Afghanistan and the region; and
(2) providing for the continued training of the Afghan national police and military forces.
(b) REDEPLOYMENT OF U.S. ARMED FORCES.—The Secretary of Defense shall redeploy the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan so that—
(1) not more than 25,000 members of the Armed Forces are deployed in Afghanistan by December 31, 2012; and
(2) not more than 10,000 members of the Armed Forces are deployed in Afghanistan by December 31, 2013.

Prepared Statement for the Record:

I rise to propose an amendment that would accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. At this pivotal point in our ongoing mission to eliminate terrorism and combat extremism, it is appropriate for this committee to re-evaluate our policy in Afghanistan and our broader strategy for keeping America safe and secure in the face of an ongoing terrorist threat and a struggling domestic economy.

The killing of Osama Bin Laden marks a critical juncture in a mission we began almost ten years ago. In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, we vowed to eliminate Al Qaeda and to bring to justice those who would maim and kill innocent civilians. Congress authorized the President to deploy the forces necessary to achieve this goal, and we channeled the best of our intelligence, military and diplomatic capacities toward this end. As the site of Al Qaeda training operations, Afghanistan was initially identified as critical territory in what we already knew even then would be a global struggle.  Our troops fought bravely to dismantle Al Qaeda training camps and eliminate their leaders, and now fewer than 100 Al Qaeda members are estimated to remain in Afghanistan.

But this limited, targeted and justified military action in Afghanistan has turned into the longest war in our nation’s history, draining our resources at a time of domestic economic hardship and financial instability, and costing thousands of U.S. lives.  To date, we have spent 722 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars on the war in Afghanistan, and that price tag increases by 10 billion dollars each month we stay. When we calculate the long-term costs of the war, including servicing our debt and caring for our veterans, the dollar figures are almost inconceivable. And the human costs of this war are immeasurable when we consider the circles of grief that surround each of the more than 10,000 Americans who have been killed or wounded.

It is Congress’s job to advance policies that are in the best interest of our constituents, and the most important of those interests is security. So we must ask ourselves: Does it advance America’s security to maintain 100,000 troops fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan while Al Qaeda establishes new roots in other countries such as Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and even the U.S.? Does it advance America’s security to spend $120 billion a year trying to build and defend a democratic state in Afghanistan while we run up our deficit and cut fundamental programs in our own country? Does it advance America’s security to pour resources into fighting a civil war against the Taliban in Afghanistan while we reduce funding for local law enforcement at home, even when our own CIA has determined that the most likely terrorist threats may be homegrown?

I conclude that the answer to these questions is definitively “no,” and polls suggest that most members of the American public agree.

This is a pivotal moment in our nation’s history, and a time when decisions by Congress and the Administration will have a major impact on our national security, now and into the future. As civilian leadership, and particularly as members of the Armed Services Committee, it is our duty to only authorize funding for those military actions which keep America safe. We owe it to our troops, and we owe it to the constituents we serve, to ensure that not one extra dollar is spent, and not one new life is lost, in a war that is not critical to our core national security interests.
Eliminating Al Qaeda is a crucial national security concern, and we must maintain a laser-like focus on this international terrorist network, capitalizing on our military, intelligence, and diplomatic advantages to track them down wherever they try to establish roots--cutting off their funding, taking out their leaders, and intercepting their operations. The recent operation against Osama Bin Laden epitomizes the kind of precise and coordinated strategy that is effective against an agile and decentralized enemy. 

We must also redirect our resources toward building up our own nation, moving toward a more balanced budget in the short run and investing in the kinds of programs that will ensure our economic productivity and leadership in the global economy over the long run.  Ultimately, America’s strength depends as much on our economic vitality and financial stability as on our military might.

Withdrawing a significant number of our troops does not mean abandoning Afghanistan. With a reduced military and civilian presence, we can maintain programs that support their economic and social development, and continue training Afghan national police and security forces. We should also push for a negotiated political settlement to the current conflict that engages elements of the Taliban and ensures some degree of stability.

Withdrawing most of our troops also does not mean allowing Afghanistan to devolve into a terrorist haven. It was and is an error to equate Taliban return with Al Qaeda’s return.  Limited numbers of U.S. troops can continue to carry out counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan, and if there is some renewed terrorist activity, we can and should respond to it much as we have been doing in other countries such as Yemen and Somalia.

At this turning point in our long struggle against terrorism and extremism, it is time to realign our strategy with our goals. The amendment I offer would reduce troop levels to 25,000 by the end of 2012 and to 10,000 by the end of 2013. Shifting from a counterinsurgency campaign to a limited counterinsurgency operation allows us to achieve the dual objectives of pursuing those terrorists who would do us harm, wherever they might emerge, and of rebuilding our domestic economy. Both are absolutely fundamental to our national security.  I ask you to join me in support of this amendment that I firmly believe offers the best way forward for keeping our country safe, secure, and prosperous.

In the letter sent to President Obama Monday, eight members of Congress called for a shift from the expensive nation building strategy currently underway in Afghanistan to one modeled after the successful mission that located and killed Osama bin Laden. Signers of the letter include Democrats Garamendi, Peter Welch (D-VT), Rush Holt (D-NJ), and John Tierney (D-MA), and Republicans Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Walter Jones (R-NC), John Campbell (R-CA), and John Duncan (R-TN).

"The success of this mission does not change the reality that America still faces a determined and violent adversary," they wrote. "It does, however, require us to reexamine our policy of nation building in Afghanistan. We believe it is no longer the best way to defend America against terror attacks, and we urge you to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan that are not crucial to the immediate national security objective of combating al Qaeda. … The killing of Osama bin Laden was made possible by a strong intelligence operation and well-trained Special Forces units. In combating extremism, the combination of actionable intelligence and highly mobile Special Forces has proven most effective against an enemy that is not limited to a single geographic location."

The full text of the letter is copied below. A pdf of the letter is available here.

Dear Mr. President:

The success of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice is a tribute to the sustained commitment of our armed forces, our intelligence agencies, and our Special Forces.  We share your pride in their courage and competence.

The success of this mission does not change the reality that America still faces a determined and violent adversary.  It does, however, require us to reexamine our policy of nation building in Afghanistan.  We believe it is no longer the best way to defend America against terror attacks, and we urge you to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan that are not crucial to the immediate national security objective of combating al Qaeda.

The cost to taxpayers of this war is immense – $2 billion weekly and $386 billion already spent, while billions more in legacy costs await us.  Every dollar spent is added to America’s deficit.

The burden on our overstretched military is likewise immense.  There are 99,800 American troops on the ground as we write this letter engaged in this nearly 10 year old war, the longest in America’s history.

Also, our success depends on the cooperation of the Karzai government whose capacity or willingness to curb rampant corruption has evaporated.

Finally, we know the terror threat is dispersed and decentralized, not concentrated in a nation state.  Consequently, a nation-building strategy has little efficacy.

The killing of Osama bin Laden was made possible by a strong intelligence operation and well-trained Special Forces units. In combating extremism, the combination of actionable intelligence and highly mobile Special Forces has proven most effective against an enemy that is not limited to a single geographic location.

As our national debt grows, the borrowing and importing from our competitors continues, and the drug-related violence on our borders increases, we must evaluate the best use of our resources.  The time has come to acknowledge that the threat posed by Afghanistan no longer justifies 100,000-plus troops on the ground.

Sunday’s events in Pakistan underscore the need for an emphasis on intelligence gathering and highly mobile Special Forces units.  We can no longer fight this war by the old rules.  This battle requires a nimble and agile force with a capacity for rapid response anywhere in the world.  It requires integration and cooperation between intelligence-gathering entities.  The CIA, NSA, NGIA and JSOC’s new Targeting and Analysis Center were all instrumental in finding and tracking Osama bin Laden.  Such operations can transform the way intelligence is gathered, analyzed, and acted upon.

After fighting the longest war in the history of the United States of America, it’s time to redeploy our resources to address our most pressing threats.  It’s time to bring the formal war in Afghanistan to an end as we adapt to the changing demands of a different kind of war.

Sincerely,

Peter Welch
Jason Chaffetz
John Garamendi
Walter Jones
Rush Holt
John Campbell
John Tierney
John Duncan

1. Part 1
2. Part 2
3. Part 1 + Part 2 Playlist
4. Complete Exchange

I guess I don’t understand. I don’t understand what our Republican colleagues want to accomplish here. They talk about free market; they talk about the opportunity have options and opportunities. I think that’s exactly what an exchange does. So I don’t quite understand what this is all about.

I was Insurance Commissioner, the elected Insurance Commissioner, in 1991, and we set up an exchange. Unfortunately, Governor Wilson vetoed it, otherwise we’d have had this exchange years ago.

And a year ago, the California legislature with the signature of a Republican Governor, Schwarzenegger, created an exchange, based upon the Affordable Care Act. And they want to put it in effect.

The Republican proposal on the floor here would make it impossible for California to do what it wants to do. That is set up a marketplace where people have access to insurance. The notion being that by creating the exchange, you spread the risk across many populations, so that, like a huge corporation, you have an opportunity as an individual purchaser or small business to participate in a large pool and accept the lower rate of insurance.

So what’s this all about? What are you trying to accomplish here? Is it some ideology that you just simply can’t stand the Affordable Care Act, and you want to rip it apart piece by piece. Apparently so. And you don’t want to just stop there.

You’re going after Medicare, a program that has been in effect for 42 years. That provides a universal insurance policy to anyone over 65. You’re going to terminate Medicare. What’s that all about? And give it to an insurance company and not have an exchange?

So what’s an individual going to do when they’re 65 and possessing all kinds of preexisting conditions? Go without insurance? Be at the mercy of the insurance companies? And by the way, you want to repeal all the insurance reforms. All of the protections that individuals have in the Affordable Care Act.

This doesn’t make much sense to me. I don’t understand what your goal is here, except to maybe have some political scorecard. You can say, ‘Yeah, we repealed the Affordable Care Act. Good for us.’

But what effect to the population of America?

No exchanges. They’re gone.

No opportunity for small businesses to enjoy a large market, a large pool, in which they can have a lower price. They’re gone.

Oh I see, you’re going to have an association health plan. I spent eight years of my life chasing after association health plans that were frauds. They were out and out frauds sold across state lines. Is that what you want? Apparently so. I don’t get it. I don’t understand what the goal is here.

The Affordable Care Act establishes an exchange allowing individuals and small businesses to be part of a large pool to have four different options on their insurance, and you want to do away with it. I don’t get it.

You want to do away with clinics at schools so kids can have access to health care. I don’t understand.

You cut all the money out from the community clinics so that people have to go to the emergency rooms in a more expensive situation. What’s this all about? I don’t understand what the goal is that our Republican colleagues have in mind.

The exchanges make sense. They created a marketplace for small businesses. The exchanges create a market, gentlemen and ladies, they create a market! It’s a market-driven program, in which competition occurs, competition between the insurance companies who have to offer quality and price. You got a problem with competition? Apparently so.

You want to do away with the exchange. Apparently what you really want to do is hand over the entire game to the insurance companies, removing all of the controls, removing all of the necessity for them to compete, and apparently create some sort of association plan so the public can be ripped off.

…

Let’s be very clear about this. The Republican proposal, the Republican budget proposal that is before this Congress, terminates Medicare as we have had it since 1965. For those young men and women who are not yet 55, they will never see Medicare. It’s over.

And instead of having Medicare, which is a guaranteed health insurance program, when they retire at the age of 65, they will be given a voucher that will be worth a percentage of what the insurance will cost.

They will be thrown into the market at an age where they have preexisting conditions, and under the Republican proposal, there are no ways they are going to be protected from the insurance companies, who we know have one motive, and that’s profits before people. (Will you yield?)
Profit before people [Will the gentlemen yield?] has been the way it has been for the insurance companies from the get go, and that’s precisely what the Republicans want to give us. We will not have it. [Will the gentleman yield?]

And while they’re at it, they want to take those reductions in your expenditures and continue giving money to the most wealthy people in America. [Will the gentleman yield?] I will not yield. So that the most wealthy people in America can continue to enjoy ever more wealth while the middle class enjoys ever more poverty. It is an abomination and there is no way this nation should abandon a proven program that for 42 years has provided quality medical care to the seniors.

Now if you want to go after the cost of medicine, then let’s go after the overall cost of medicine – not denying tomorrow’s seniors the benefit of Medicare. It is time to understand precisely what the Republican budget does. It terminates Medicare while giving benefits to the most wealthy Americans. It should not happen. I yield back my time.

"President Obama and heroes in the American military and intelligence communities have sent a message to the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda and others who seek to harm American citizens. We have demonstrated the unwavering resolve of the U.S. to pursue international terrorists wherever they may hide and proven the strength of our coordinated efforts to eradicate terrorist networks and bring those who would kill innocent civilians to justice.

"Nothing will ever bring back the thousands of Americans tragically lost on September 11, 2001, taken from our world too soon by Osama Bin Laden and his gang of cold blooded murderers. We should also remember that Al Qaeda’s trail of death spans the globe. Indeed, since September 11, Al Qaeda has ruthlessly murdered thousands of Muslims. For grieving families from Arlington and New York City to Islamabad and Cairo, bitter justice has been served and tepid solace can hopefully be reached.

"The tragedy on September 11 brought the American people together in a spontaneous display of unity as a nation, and I’m glad to see that unity emerging again. No matter what divides us, we all share the experience of being Americans, and in a very real sense, we were all attacked that fateful day.

"Following the September 11 terrorist attack, I joined most Americans in supporting the eradication of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan. We were savagely attacked, and it was appropriate to dismantle the terrorist group responsible.

"Today, in 2011, it is estimated that fewer than 100 members of Al Qaeda remain in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda’s network is spreading its roots throughout the globe, in places like Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and even the United States. We must focus on Al Qaeda like a laser wherever they reside. This operation against Bin Laden, through a targeted strike involving cooperation between special forces and intelligence, is a perfect example and suggests that a more focused strategy can be successful.

"The biggest security threat to America isn’t one person or one country, but rather the ideologies and conditions that fuel extremism and terrorism. Our influence throughout the world is determined not just by the strength of our military but also the vitality of our economy and the values of our great democracy. Ultimately our national security is much more dependent on ending desperate poverty, funding good schools, and empowering women in the developing world while eradicating international terrorist networks like Al Qaeda. With Bin Laden dead and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan largely extinguished, it’s time we revisited the wisdom of continuing the war in Afghanistan.

"We must remain vigilant, keeping America and our troops serving overseas safe and secure. Bin Laden’s death does not end Al Qaeda or the serious threat it poses to America and our allies."

"This Transportation Department grant to CalTrans is a gift that will keep on giving,” said Congressman John Garamendi. "Transportation Secretary LaHood and Federal Railroad Administrator Szabo are wisely harnessing grant money, so that we Make It In America and create jobs now. Also, by connecting people and markets, these expanded rail lines will provide a boost to California's economy."

According to the Congressional Budget office, every $1 invested in infrastructure adds $1.57 to the economy.

Congressman Garamendi continued, "By facilitating more riders to take the Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin corridors, we will relieve congestion on highways and curb our contribution to climate change. In Congress, I will continue to promote a Make It In America agenda for jobs, improved transportation for California, and a transition towards clean energy."

During the 111th Congress, Congressman Garamendi was the only Northern California Member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. While the Committee no longer has a Representative from Northern California, the Congressman continues to advocates for the region's transportation needs. Congressman Garamendi authored The Airports, Highways, High-Speed Rail, Trains and Transit: Make It In America Act (H.R. 613), which creates American jobs by setting stronger standards for goods and equipment purchased with federal dollars for infrastructure projects.

"This Republican hearing seeks to reignite the water wars of the past and pit Californians against each other for short-term gain," said Congressman John Garamendi (CA-10). "There is a more constructive way forward for our community. We must focus on responsible science-based water management, with conservation, storage, and recycling playing a prominent role – balancing our water needs and creating jobs across the Golden State."
 
"Water is a shared resource all of us Californians rely on: farmers, communities, homeowners, manufacturers and fishermen all need our water supply to be protected," said Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (CA-38), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Water and Power. "Instead of promoting special interests that pit us against each other, we should be promoting a balanced approach that helps all of California. We have examined this topic at more than fifteen hearings since 2003, and it is time for attention to be paid to the water needs of the entire state."

Last year, the State of California reported that the closure of salmon fishing in California had cost the state’s economy at least $250 million. Recent studies have estimated that nearly 2,000 salmon fishermen have been unable to work due to lack of salmon over the last three years, job loss figures comparable to the number of farm workers who could not work due to pumping restrictions during the drought.  This season will be the first time since 2008 that California salmon fishermen will be able to work a commercial fishing season, after pumping restrictions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta allowed the salmon population to bounce back.

"The worst thing we could do is dismantle the smart water policies that are protecting our fishing jobs," said Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-01). "We have to take sustainable action that will benefit our farmers and fishers for years to come. Federal protections aren't the enemy - they're a crucial tool in developing responsible water policies."

Proponents of increased water flows from the Delta to agricultural users have cited pumping restrictions as the cause of Central Valley water curtailments. However, this year no water has been withheld on account of the Delta smelt or Chinook salmon. As of last week, the Central Valley Water Project had a water allotment of 75% of requested for agricultural users south of the Delta.

"Drought cycles are a fact of life," Napolitano said. "We have been fortunate enough to receive a great quantity of rain this year, but now is not the time to stop preparing for the next drought. We need to continue with the techniques that have worked in the past: more conservation, storage, education, desalination, recycling, and infrastructure."

Background:

• Unemployment in the Central Valley has been a chronic issue even in wet water years.  Recent job losses since 2008 have been mainly caused by the collapse of the construction and housing sector after the financial crisis.  By July of 2009, Stockton, Merced, Modesto, and Bakersfield were among the top 10 cities in the U.S. for foreclosures, affecting thousands of construction-related jobs.
• In 2009, an influential study on pumping restrictions overstated job losses claimed to be due to environmental pumping restrictions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. While this data was ultimately proven false, for a time it was widely disseminated in the media. Professors Richard Howitt of UC Davis and Dr. Jeffrey Michael of University of the Pacific later revised their early numbers from the tens of thousands down to 1,400-3,000 jobs lost – within the same range as the number of California salmon fisherman who lost their jobs when the salmon population declined from Delta pumping.
• Pumping restrictions have proven critical in helping the salmon population recover, as they allow young salmon to make it past the pumps and out to sea unharmed. This year, salmon fishermen will be able to return to sea for the first time since 2008.
• Even at the height of the financial crisis and drought, California farmers were able to post record sales for agriculture. The state’s agricultural sales for 2009 were the third highest recorded, behind only 2008 and 2007.
• On March 30, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown declared the drought to be officially over.  Democrats welcomed the short-term boost to the state’s water supply, but called for long-term improvements to prepare for the next drought.
• On April 8, 2011, the Bureau of Reclamation updated its Central Valley water supply allotments, with 75% for agricultural water service contractors and 100% for most other water contractors. More details: http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=35843 

Congressman Garamendi issued the following statement:

"The pollutants emitted by power plants endanger the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. I’m glad President Obama and the EPA have established a national standard for emissions.

"Air pollution does not respect state lines. When some jurisdictions permit virtually no regulation of power plant emissions, they become bad neighbors, exposing the rest of us to dangerous and sometimes lethal ailments, including cancer and childhood asthma. Thousands of premature deaths will be averted by this policy.

"Where personal greed threatens the health of millions of Americans, it is appropriate for federal agencies to step in. By requiring power plants to reduce 187 known toxic air pollutants, including mercury, arsenic, and chromium, the EPA is telling power companies and their powerful allies to clean up their act to clean up our air. This is a good policy for every American who values their health and the health of their loved ones."
 

"I support repealing the new 1099 reporting requirements. They are an onerous and unnecessary burden on small businesses. My Republican colleagues could have crafted a workable bipartisan bill with almost unanimous support.

"Instead, House Republicans forced Congress to make a poisonous choice today: vote No and maintain the paperwork burden on small businesses or vote Yes and increase taxes on small businesses and working men and women. I voted No and urged my Republican colleagues to rewrite the bill.

"Last July, I joined my Democratic colleagues in supporting a repeal of the 1099 provision. Our proposal would have offset the costs by eliminating billions of dollars in tax incentives that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas, restricting the ability of wealthy families to avoid paying gift taxes, closing loopholes that allow paper mills to claim a tax credit for a byproduct known as “crude tall oil”, and increasing penalties for failing to file tax returns. I thought this was a reasonable and balanced approach favorable to America’s small businesses AND middle class families.

"Unfortunately, House Republicans have decided to pit small business owners against middle class families. The Republican 1099 bill states that once a family of four’s income goes between 400 and 500 percent of the poverty level, between $88,000 to $110,000, they would have to pay the IRS the entire value of their health premium tax credits. The average payment would go up by $3,000 to $6,000 on a family of four, leading to a projected increase of 226,000 uninsured Americans.

"I will not support legislation that punishes middle class families and small businesses. I voted against a bill that would result in middle class families paying higher taxes simply because they are receiving insurance. We still have time to do this right. The 1099 provision does not come into effect until 2012. I urge my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats to find a bipartisan solution that helps small businesses, middle class families, and the American economy."

"Ultimately, these reckless proposals would harm California. Jeopardizing the restoration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, stopping implementation of the San Joaquin River settlement, disrupting the Klamath River agreements and attempting to delay the Bureau of Reclamation’s water efficiency efforts is not in the interest of California and its people," Congressman Garamendi said in his statement.

Congressman Garamendi’s complete statement is below:

"Dear Members of the California State Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife:

"As a member of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, and former Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, I believe H.R. 1, the House Republican Continuing Resolution, would jeopardize the restoration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, stop implementation of the San Joaquin River settlement, disrupt the Klamath River agreements and attempt to delay the Bureau of Reclamation’s water efficiency efforts.

"Developing California water policy requires sound science, careful planning and study, and reasoned debate.

"However, H.R. 1 can have severe impacts on the California economy and harm the state's ability to determine its water future.

"Section 1475, authored by Congressman Devin Nunes, of H.R. 1 defunds the critical biological opinions set forth in the 1986 Coordinate Operations Agreement, which are important elements of the plan to provide California with a balanced water strategy.

"Section 1475 would disrupt the legal process and could once again force judicial action related to the Endangered Species Act and fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, halting statewide water distribution and imperiling thousands of California jobs, including in the agricultural and fishing industries dependent on reliable access to water.

"Moreover, Section 1475 also disregards eighteen years of litigation that successfully brought an end to a longer conflict over water rights at the San Joaquin River. A settlement was reached that is agreed to by almost everyone, including local officials, fisherpersons, farmers, environmental leaders, and water districts.

"Amendment #296, authored by Congressman Tom McClintock, to H.R. 1 would prohibit funds from being made available to implement the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study. This would disrupt agreements among dozens of stakeholders to ensure salmon restoration and ensure water and power availability to farmers in the region.

"Related, amendments #286 and #289 also written by Congressman McClintock would have defunded the ability of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to implement Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program and WaterSMART grant program. Both of these programs are essential to more efficiently using our limited water supplies in California and throughout the Western United States.

"Ultimately, these reckless proposals would harm California. Jeopardizing the restoration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, stopping implementation of the San Joaquin River settlement, disrupting the Klamath River agreements and attempting to delay the Bureau of Reclamation’s water efficiency efforts is not in the interest of California and its people.

"Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. Californians must be made aware of the drastic, disturbing, and far reaching consequences of H.R. 1 on our state’s natural resources, economy and way of life.

"Sincerely,
JOHN GARAMENDI
Member of Congress"

"Developing California water policy requires careful planning and reasoned debate. The language authored by Rep. Nunes instead throws into complete chaos a compromise developed after nearly two decades of litigation," said Congressman Garamendi. "This reckless proposal, buried in an omnibus spending bill, would harm the fragile Delta and potentially disrupt the water supply of farmers and communities throughout California."

Section 1475 of the Continuing Resolution will harm the California economy and harm the state's ability to determine its own water future. Section 1475 disregards 18 years of litigation that successfully brought an end to a longer conflict over water rights at the San Joaquin River. A settlement was reached that is agreed to by almost everyone, including local officials, fisherpersons, farmers, environmental leaders, and water districts.

The Continuing Resolution also defunds critical biological opinions that are important elements of the plan to provide California with a balanced water strategy. To disrupt the legal process now could once again force judicial action related to the Endangered Species Act and fish in the Delta, halting statewide water distribution and imperiling thousands of California jobs, including agriculture jobs, dependent on reliable access to water.

Garamendi added, "The people of California have great expectations for their leaders and expect them to govern, not to unleash chaos and uncertainty. I will do all I can to stop this dangerous plan."

Congressman Garamendi, with original co-sponsors Reps. George Miller (D-Martinez, CA), Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento, CA), Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton, CA), and Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena, CA), have introduced the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area Establishment Act H.R. 486 to protect the culture, history, and economy of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have introduced companion legislation in the Senate. To learn more about this historic legislation, please visit: http://garamendi.house.gov/legislation/delta-national-heritage-area.shtml.

Congressman Garamendi speaks in honor of Sargent Shriver

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA), who served as a Peace Corps volunteer with his wife Patti Garamendi in Ethiopia, introduced a resolution honoring the life and legacy of Sargent Shriver, the first director of the Peace Corps. House Resolution 64 is supported by 13 original co-sponsors: Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Howard Berman (D-CA), Education and Workforce Committee Ranking Member George Miller (D-CA), Natural Resources Ranking Member Edward Markey (D-MA), Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI), Congressman Sam Farr (D-CA), Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU), Congressman James Langevin (D-RI), Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN), Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), Congressman David Price (D-NC), Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY), and Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA).

"Sargent Shriver was a true American hero, a selfless humanitarian, and a firm believer that America's best days are still ahead. He was also a trusted friend and mentor. This resolution honors his storied life and legacy," said Congressman Garamendi. "President Kennedy had the big idea, but it was Sarge who had the vision and drive to make the Peace Corps a remarkable success. His enthusiasm motivated Americans to join the Peace Corps and serve men, women, and children in every part of the globe, including Patti and me."

Sarge's profound dedication to improving the lives of others took many different and important paths, from leading the effort to end segregation in the Chicago public school system to the founding of the Peace Corps. Sarge's work on the War on Poverty included the creation of Head Start, Job Corps, VISTA, Neighborhood Health Centers, Legal Services to the Poor, and Foster Grandparents among others.

"Sargent Shriver was a tireless crusader for peace and justice, willing to lend a hand wherever one was needed, and building institutions that could carry on the work into the future.  His legacy – the children given a head start, the volunteers whose lives were changed and who changed lives in service around the globe, and the individuals with disabilities now treated with the dignity and respect they deserve – will continue for years to come," said Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

"For fifty years, the programs Sargent Shriver helped to create have lifted millions of people out of poverty and provided thousands of Americans with once in a lifetime opportunities to serve their communities, gain the invaluable satisfaction that comes from helping others, and take the lessons learned to continue their service to others throughout their lives," said Congressman Howard Berman. "As a VISTA volunteer myself, Sargent Shriver's compassion and vision inspired me, just as it inspired generation of Americans to answer the call to serve."

"Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr. was a public servant in the truest sense of the word, promoting human dignity and peace throughout the world during his extraordinary and distinguished career," said Congressman Edward J. Markey. "As the first director of the Peace Corps, a US ambassador and founder of such organizations as Head Start and Job Corps, he embodied a commitment to action spurred by a spirit of compassion, justice and excellence that Americans continue to follow to this day."

"Sarge Shriver embodied the incredible, relentless spirit of public service that makes America great; and will forever hold a special place in our country's history," said Congressman Sam Farr. "As the first Director of the Peace Corps, I first met Sargent Shriver in 1963 in small town in Questa, New Mexico, when I was Peace Corps Trainee. Then and now, his commitment to peace building has touched millions of lives, both of the Americans who served and those they served with in communities around the world."

"Sargent Shriver was the ultimate public servant," said Congressman Jim Moran. "He supplied the inspirational energy and leadership that drove so many public initiatives, especially the Peace Corps, that served to make the world a better place."

"Sargent Shriver was the best personification of President Kennedy's call to serve our country," said Congressman José Serrano. "His achievements were not a resumé but rather the story of a life of selfless service and patriotism. My life was most directly touched by Sargent Shriver's efforts as director of the Office of Economic Opportunity under President Johnson.  His efforts in creating Head Start, VISTA, the Community Action Program, and Legal Services for the poor helped lift many in my community in the Bronx out of poverty, and provided them with opportunities they would not have otherwise had.  Many of the programs started by Sargent Shriver are today important parts of our social safety net, and continue to provide economic and social justice opportunities."

"Sargent Shriver was a true American original," said Congressman Jim McGovern. "He was a man of peace and a man of conscience. I'm pleased to join Rep. Garamendi and my other colleagues in paying tribute to him."

Op-ed originally appeared in the Contra Costa Times.

NEXT WEEK, the House of Representatives will take up legislation to deny you access to the same type of health insurance that members of Congress enjoy. That's hypocritical and unfair.

While most Americans are concerned about creating more jobs and strengthening the economy, the top priority of the new Republican majority in the House is eliminating your new health care rights and benefits.

They want to repeal the historic patient's bill of rights that we enacted last year and replace it with the insurance industry's right to discriminate. That's bad news for children, women, seniors and our economy. If the patient's bill of rights is repealed, people in Contra Costa and Solano counties and throughout California will be irreparably harmed.

For instance, there's a severely disabled young woman in Walnut Creek who had high-risk surgery last year. If repeal passes, insurers will once again be able to deny her coverage. And a woman from Martinez has a daughter who was born with epilepsy and would reach her lifetime benefits at age four. The health care law will help keep her alive. They are just two of millions of Californians who depend on the benefits of the health care law.

If Republicans succeed in repealing the health care law, insurance companies will have the power to:

• Drop coverage for women who become pregnant or get cancer.
• Deny care to children with pre-existing conditions.
• Stop allowing young people under the age of 26 to be covered under their parents' plan.
• Raise premiums any time by any amount without being held accountable.

Seniors might have the most to lose from repeal, which is why the AARP vehemently opposes repeal. This year, seniors in the Medicare Part D prescription drug "donut hole" start receiving a 50 percent discount on name-brand prescription drugs. With every passing year, we're gradually closing the donut hole completely. Through the patient's bill of rights, seniors can now get free preventive screenings so doctors can catch problems early -- helping to save lives and money.

The House Republicans' plan will force millions of seniors to make losing choices -- prescription drugs or their rent; medicine or their heating bill. We all deserve to retire with dignity, and putting seniors in harm's way to reward wealthy insurance company CEOs is wrong.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office just reported that repeal would increase the budget deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years. Repeal takes the deficit in the wrong direction, raising it and imposing an unnecessary hardship on our children and generations to come.

The horror stories we've heard of patients losing life and limb because of insurers' greed could fill many editions of this newspaper. In 2007, 62 percent of bankruptcies in this country were due to health care costs.

The patient's bill of rights offers American consumers the most significant new protections in generations and restores their power to make critical health care decisions. Repealing the law would lead to more runaway rate hikes, more patients denied lifesaving procedures, and more seniors forced into poverty to pay for essential medication.

You can count on us to vote against repeal. But you can also count on Republicans in Congress to use every opportunity to try to take away your right to control your own health care and grant the insurance industry the right to discriminate against you.

Instead of hypocritically trying to deny you the same type of health insurance that they have, Republican members of Congress should join us to work on creating more jobs and reducing the deficit -- just like they promised to do in last year's campaign.

Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, and Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congressman Garamendi, California’s Insurance Commissioner for eight years, said:

"House Republicans today clearly signaled their out-of-touch priorities, proposing a rule that will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up our deficit by $5 trillion. The American people have made it clear that they want jobs. Where are the jobs in this plan?

"House Republicans propose eliminating the consumer protections found in the Patient’s Bill of Rights – adding more than a trillion dollars to the deficit while putting our health care back in the hands of the insurance CEOs. House Republicans propose eliminating the Democratic pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) policy and replacing it with the fantasy that when it comes to tax giveaways for the rich, we don’t need to worry about the deficit. House Republicans propose eliminating tens of billions of dollars from the transportation infrastructure projects needed to put Americans back to work.

"This jobs-killing, deficit-exploding package – returning us to business as usual under President Bush – does nothing to create jobs or put America on a path to recovery."

Under the rule changes proposed by House Republicans:

• Health Care: The Affordable Care Act would be subject to repeal without offsetting its more than a trillion in savings over 20 years, removing consumer protections while taking money out of the pockets of American taxpayers. Protections already law that would be subject to spiking repeal include:
  • The ban on discrimination by health insurers based on pre-existing conditions;
  • The ban that prohibits health insurance companies from rescind coverage when you get sick;
  • Tax credits for small businesses and American families;
  • Policies that lower costs and expand services for seniors;
  • Policies that let young adults stay on their parents’ health care plans; and
  • The ban on annual and lifetime limits on covered benefits.
     
• Deficits: Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) requirements – imposed by House Democrats to balance the budget – would be replaced with the same deficit-spiking policies that existed under House GOP rule during the Bush era. Under proposed rules, all tax cuts will be exempted from revenue neutral requirements, allowing tax cuts for big business and the rich to drive up the deficit. The GOP rule is expected to add $5 trillion to the deficit.
   
• Transportation: Tens of billions of dollars could be slashed from highway and mass transit federal accounts, including the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFET-LU) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (T-21), depriving local communities of essential transportation infrastructure projects that create jobs. Infrastructure investments, unlike tax cuts for the rich, are effective at creating jobs, pumping $1.57 into the economy for every dollar invested. Many organizations oppose this rules change, including:
  • San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
  • Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit)
  • Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority
  • East Contra Costa Transit Authority (Tri-Delta)
  • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
  • American Concrete Pavement Association
  • American Council of Engineering Companies
  • American Highway Users Alliance
  • American Moving and Storage Association
  • American Public Transportation Association
  • American Road and Transportation Builders Association
  • American Society of Civil Engineers
  • American Traffic Safety Services Association
  • American Trucking Associations
  • Associated Equipment Distributors
  • Associated General Contractors of America
  • Association of Equipment Manufacturers
  • Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
  • International Union of Operating Engineers
  • Laborer-Employers Cooperation and Education Trust
  • Laborers International Union of North America
  • National Asphalt Pavement Association
  • National Ready Mix Concrete Association
  • National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
  • U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Twice yesterday (first and second), Congressman Garamendi spoke up on the House
floor in opposition to the Obama/GOP tax plan that threatens Social Security and wastes
$70 billion dollars of borrowed money on the fabulously wealthy.

WASHINGTON, DC – After today’s vote on the Obama/GOP bill, Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA) said the following:

"Public policy is about choices, and there were better choices than this bill. I fought for a bill that would have worked for the American people. 

"Our alternative proposal called for a $250 rebate for seniors. Instead of draining the Social Security trust fund, it called for a reduction in the income tax rate for working and middle class Americans. And instead of borrowing from China and our children to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, we offered a compromise that would have made sure every American earning up to $1,000,000 would not see a tax increase over the next two years. With the money saved, we would have invested in infrastructure and paid down the deficit. This plan would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs and been more fiscally responsible.

"Furthermore, on December 2nd, I voted with my Democratic colleagues for a good tax cut bill, one that extends tax relief for the middle class, helps families with children, and offers assistance to students, while not wasting borrowed money on the richest Americans least likely to spend their money on job creating American goods and services. While I support the extension of unemployment insurance and many of the tax provisions in this bill helping working and middle class families and small businesses, I believe a much better deal could have been crafted to help struggling families and create desperately needed jobs for 17 million Americans out of work through no fault of their own.”

Congressman Garamendi voted against the Obama/GOP plan, because it gives the richest two percent of Americans $65 billion a year, threatens Social Security, and drives up the deficit. Garamendi opposed the legislation that takes $150 billion out of the Social Security trust fund, exposing Social Security to cuts in the future. The plan passed by a vote of 277-148.

Earlier this month, Garamendi voted for a better tax reduction bill that would create jobs and help middle class families, and he also supported an amendment, not included in final votes, that would have replaced tax cuts for the fabulously rich with infrastructure and debt reduction.

Garamendi continued:

"President Franklin D. Roosevelt once 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.’ Congress failed this test.

"Congressional Republicans took hardworking American families and people out of work through no fault of their own hostage to make sure that rich millionaires and billionaires got huge tax breaks they don’t need. The hostage takers won."

Garamendi did have an opportunity to vote for an amendment authored by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) that would have reduced the estate tax to 45 percent for individual estates exceeding $3.5 million in value. That amendment failed by a 194-233 vote.

Here are some of the reasons Congressman Garamendi is opposed to the tax bill in its present form:

• A reduction in the withholding tax for Social Security undermines the solvency of Social Security and threatens the ability of seniors to retire with dignity. A reduction in the withholding tax also excludes 5.7 million middle class public sector workers. Garamendi pushed for replacing the reduction in withholding tax with extending the Make Work Pay tax credit or lowering the income tax for working and middle class Americans.
• Extending a reduction of tax rates for income above $250,000 costs $80 billion, without effectively spurring job creation. Garamendi pushed for replacing the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires with investments in infrastructure and education and reducing the deficit.
• A cut to the estate tax forces Americans to borrow $25 billion, just to pay the heirs to the wealthiest 6,600 estates. Garamendi pushed for an amendment that would have created a fairer estate tax, one that permanently keeps the rate at 45 percent for estates valued above $3.5 million.
• According to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, making the Bush income tax cuts permanent is the least effective form of stimulus available to policymakers, recouping only 32 cents for every dollar borrowed from foreign countries. The most effective strategies for economic recovery include food assistance ($1.74 in economy for every $1 invested), assistance for people out of work through no fault of their own ($1.61 for every $1), infrastructure investments ($1.57 for every $1), and aid to states for education and other vital services ($1.41 for every $1). Garamendi pushed for investments in America instead of borrowed tax giveaways for the wealthy.
• While the Obama/GOP tax bill gives wasteful tax breaks to millionaires and the billionaires, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided targeted tax incentives for the middle class and made smart investments in infrastructure and scientific research that will strengthen our economy in the decades to come. Garamendi pushed for the investments that grow the American economy and create jobs instead of borrowing money from foreign countries to give the rich an average tax cut nearing $100,000 a year.
  
   

In the first speech about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell on the House floor today,
Congressman Garamendi talks about Anthony Woods, a veteran who was
wastefully dismissed under the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA), the son of a veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee, today joined his Democratic colleagues in the House in voting to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which requires the military discharge qualified gay and lesbian soldiers simply because of their sexual orientation. In a speech delivered on the House floor this morning, Congressman Garamendi was the first member of Congress to speak out against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell today. The bill passed by a 250-175 vote.

"On the battlefield, it doesn’t matter who you love; it matters what country you love. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is wrong. Period," Congressman Garamendi said. "Anyone brave enough to wear the uniform in defense of our country should not be forced to live a lie. Thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers who have served our country honorably have been needlessly discharged because of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, including many in demand linguists and intelligence officers. This discriminatory policy must stop, and it must stop now."

In May, the House voted to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by a 234-194 vote. While its repeal has stalled in the Senate, a standalone repeal has been recently introduced in the Senate that is likely to be voted on before the end of the year.

A report released by the Department of Defense in late November revealed that 70 percent of active duty military personnel believe allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to openly serve would have little or no negative impact on military cohesion.
 

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA), former chair of the California Commission for Economic Development, today joined his Democratic colleagues in voting for a package of tax cuts designed to help working and middle class Americans and to grow the economy.

"To repair our economy and create jobs, we need to put money in the hands of the people most likely to spend it," Congressman Garamendi said. "This package of tax cuts gives everyone a helping hand but wisely focuses on the needs of small businesses and working and middle class consumers: those most likely to purchase goods, drive consumer spending, and stimulate demand for new hiring."

Under the Democratic tax assistance package, everyone in America who pays taxes will receive a tax cut up to $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for dual filers in their adjusted gross income. The income tax rates for the wealthiest two percent of Americans beyond $200,000 or $250,000 are restored to Clinton-era levels. Most economists acknowledge that tax cuts for the wealthiest in society are among the least effective ways to grow the economy, and they add $700 billion to the deficit over ten years.

"Giving the wealthiest Americans an average tax giveaway of $83,347 per person does not address the fundamental problem of our economy: not enough jobs. The wealthy are the people most likely to hoard their money at just the moment we need money gushing into shops throughout America," Garamendi explained.

"The rich will dump most of their tax windfall into things that don’t help America create jobs. After borrowing $700 billion over ten years from China to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, we would see much of this money funneled directly into investments in foreign companies and unproductive assets," Garamendi continued. "Public policy is about choices, and that’s a bad choice. Let’s choose instead to use our limited resources to rebuild American manufacturing to create the jobs we need to stay competitive."

If the Democratic tax cut package is put into law:

The average American family will save about $1,000 a year;
97% of American families and small businesses will get tax cuts;
Almost all families with children will have access to a $1,000 a year child tax credit;
More than 25 million more Americans will be protected from the Alternative Minimum Tax;
For individuals earning $200,000 and married couples earning $250,000 in adjusted gross income, capital gains and dividends taxes will be kept at a lower 15 percent rate, saving investors about $100 billion over ten years;
Student loan interest deductions will be kept permanently at $2,500 for people earning up to $75,000; and
Small businesses will be able to permanently write-off up to $125,000 of capital expenditures.
 

"Yesterday’s report by the Department of Defense demonstrates once and for all that our nation’s continuing discrimination against gay and lesbian soldiers serves no purpose and must end. Anyone willing to put on the uniform and risk their life for our nation deserves the ability to serve openly in our military without fear of reprisal.

"Inevitably we will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Yet every year we delay its repeal, hundreds of brave soldiers, including in demand translators and intelligence personnel, will be kicked out of the military for reasons we can now conclusively say are without merit. These early terminations of good soldiers have cost America at least half a billion dollars in lost productivity and retraining costs. This policy must end.

"Members of Congress seeking delay called for this report; they now have it. Let’s end the charade that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is necessary for unit cohesion. We know it’s not. I plead with my colleagues in the Senate, Don’t Delay, Don’t Discriminate in the military. Repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell."

On May 27, 2010, the House of Representatives, by a 234-194 margin, voted to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Congressman Garamendi voted in favor of the legislation.

H.R. 6419, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Continuation Act, would extend unemployment benefits for two million Americans for three additional months. Unemployment Insurance is an insurance program. Every worker and employee in America pays into the insurance fund. When they lose their job, the fund pays a temporary benefit. Congressman Garamendi issued the following statement:

"We will not give up on people looking for a job. We were unable to get the necessary two-thirds of members of Congress to immediately move on an extension of unemployment benefits today. 454,500 California families continue to rely on their unemployment insurance checks to pay for food, mortgage and rent payments, and clothing, and this vital income is now imperiled.

"I hope that those Republicans who voted against extending assistance for jobseekers go home to their Thanksgiving dinner table and think about the nearly two million out-of-work Americans who will have the most meager of meals on Thanksgiving Day, knowing that without an extension of the unemployment insurance program, their families’ Christmas will be worthy of Scrooge in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. 

"Americans must work together to revitalize our economy. We have a moral obligation to make sure that everyone looking for a job can put food on the table. We all suffer when children go hungry, rent payments lapse, and struggling Americans fall into desperation and destitution. Those who think we can afford massive tax breaks for billionaires surely must accept that we can afford temporary assistance for jobseekers.

"We must do all we can to create jobs. The number one job of the next Congress is to answer the question the America people are asking: ‘Where are the jobs?’ Our answer: Make It In America and create the good manufacturing jobs that are the backbone of the middle class."

"The Army Corps of Engineers must realize that all levee systems are not built the same," said Congressman Garamendi, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Interior from 1995-1998. "It’s very clear from studies here in California that you can build levees that preserve public safety and take into consideration the impact on local economies and wildlife habitats. We especially need to be sensitive about habitats relied upon by rare and endangered species."

The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 requires cooperation with local governments and consideration of the environmental impact of any levy construction policy. Specifically, Section 202(g) requires examining “current policies in view of the varied interests in providing flood control, preserving, protecting, and enhancing natural resources” in a process "undertaken in cooperation with interested Federal agencies and in consultation with interested representatives of State and local governments and the public."

Following the Hurricane Katrina tragedy, Congress passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 which established the National Levee Safety Committee (NLSC) responsible for providing recommendations to Congress for a national levee safety program. The NLSC is still drafting their recommendations.

Yet on April 10, 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers published Engineering and Design: Guidelines for Landscape Planting and Vegetation Management at Levees, Floodwalls, Embankment Dams, and Appurtenant Structures, requiring all federally constructed levees along streams and rivers to be free of trees and shrubs. Recommendations for blanket vegetation removal in this document have not been endorsed by the NLSC or Congress, leading many agencies involved on the local level to think that the Corps is acting beyond its mandate. 

"The Corps must change its policies or else they will jeopardize public safety and cost local governments millions of dollars," Garamendi added. "Public safety and environmental sustainability can and must work hand-in-hand."

"We don’t understand why the Army Corps of Engineers is doing this," said Mitch Avalon with the Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association. The Association represents all public works agencies in the Bay Area. "Research has shown that vegetation is a very low risk factor for levee failure and many levees, like Wildcat Creek, are safer with vegetation."

"We’re stuck between conflicting laws," said Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, whose West County District includes Richmond. "If we do what the Corps wants, we’ll get fined by the State Fish and Game and Federal fish and wildlife regulators. If we don’t, we’ll be in jeopardy of losing federal flood disaster assistance and residents in the area will be burdened with higher insurance rates."

"Whether they realize it or not, every transportation agency represented in this room is on the frontlines of one of the most important battles of the 21st century," said Rep. Garamendi. "With your procurement decisions, you decide whether America will thrive in the decades ahead or if we’ll witness a slow decline."

"Too many of you continue to throw our good manufacturing jobs – the backbone of America’s middle class – to other countries eager to invest in their own futures. That’s why I’ve proposed legislation that ends federal subsidies for foreign-produced transportation purchases," Garamendi added. "With the local, state, and federal tax dollars you receive, you need to Make it in America to save the America we love. If we don’t Make it in America, we won’t make it in America. Manufacturing matters."

In his remarks, Garamendi said the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge boondoggle, marred in delays and cost overruns caused by shoddy steel manufacturing from China, is among the clearest examples of American jobs thrown away with the help of public money. Many of the revenues collected through tolls and other public funding sources for the Bay Bridge were and continue to be diverted to China and other foreign countries for labor and parts. Meanwhile, across the Bay in Pittsburg, California and in states throughout the country, steel plants lay off workers due to a lack of purchase orders.

Garamendi explained: "Can countries with atrocious labor and environmental standards sometimes produce goods a little bit cheaper than American workers? Sure, but that’s a shallow way of looking at our economy. As we saw with the Bay Bridge, sometimes you get what you pay for. Even more importantly, supply chains matter. American workers pay American taxes and spend money at local businesses. With increased demand, these businesses expand and hire new workers, creating even more local demand along with tax revenues that can then be used in additional infrastructure. This cycle of growth and prosperity must be our nation’s priority in the years ahead."

Garamendi’s transportation legislation, the Buses, Rail Cars, Ferryboats: Make it in America Act of 2010 (H.R. 5791), would create American jobs by eliminating three waivers to the Bu; y America requirement and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent on American-made buses, rail cars, and ferryboats. Transit agencies would have to look to American manufacturers for their transportation equipment needs unless it increases costs by 25 percent or more, thereby putting welders, engineers, mechanics, electricians, technicians, and other Americans back to work.

Well over 12 percent of California workers are struggling to find employment in our difficult economy, while approximately 12,000 to 20,000 American jobs are offshored every month. Real wages adjusted for inflation in America have remained stagnant since the 1970s.

Other Make it in America bills by the Congressman would close corporate tax loopholes that reward the off-shoring of jobs, ends taxpayer subsidies for foreign-produced clean energy technology, and offer tax incentives for capital improvements to encourage businesses to expand so they can hire new workers.
 

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA), California’s Insurance Commissioner for eight years and a health care advisor to President Bill Clinton, today expressed his outrage that many for-profit insurance companies, including Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, and Cigna, plan to stop offering children’s-only health plans instead of obeying the new Patient’s Bill of Rights that requires companies to offer health insurance to children. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, beginning this Thursday, insurance companies offering children’s plans can no longer engage in the discriminatory practices they’ve long exploited for unrestrained profit.

"Once again, we’re seeing insurance companies put profits over people. They’d prefer to make a profit rather than offer insurance to our kids," Congressman Garamendi said. "We can handle this the easy way or the hard way. Either they back down from their latest outrageous stunt – discriminating against children for a few extra pennies of profit – or they can face the outrage of Congress, parents, and grandparents."

All Americans, including children, will still have access to high-risk pools through 2014, at which point denial of coverage for so-called pre-existing conditions will be outlawed in all insurance plans. In addition, some law-abiding insurance companies are not following the disgraceful path of Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, and Cigna, and will comply with the new law outlawing discrimination in health coverage for children.

"President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress fought tooth and nail for a good health reform law. We specifically created the Patient’s Bill of Rights to stop health insurance company discrimination. We are saving lives and improving coverage for millions of Americans – despite the profiteers in the insurance industry," added Garamendi, who as California’s Insurance Commissioner authored legislation that inspired President Clinton’s health reform proposals. "Starting this week, key preventative services will be available without deductibles or co-pays; health coverage will no longer be arbitrarily cancelled if you get sick; and insurers will no longer be able to put lifetime limits on coverage. Yet as the greediest insurance companies seem all too eager to demonstrate, our work is not yet done."

Video of Congressman Garamendi discussing the improvements in health care reform that will be implemented beginning tomorrow and the harm that would befall America if health care reform were repealed is available here: http://garamendi.house.gov/2010/09/congressmen-garamendi-and-miller-announce-new-health-care-benefits.shtml.

For Plan Years Beginning On Or After September 23, 2010, Privately-Insured Consumers Will Have The Following New Protections:

• Your health coverage cannot be arbitrarily cancelled if you become sick

Up until now, insurance companies had been able to retroactively cancel your policy when you became sick, or if you or your employer had made an unintentional mistake on your paperwork. Under the new law, health plans are prohibited from rescinding coverage except in cases involving fraud or an intentional misrepresentation of facts.

Due to pressure from Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration, insurers agreed to begin implementing this protection early, this spring; so rescissions are now a thing of the past.  This protection applies to all health plans.

• Your child cannot be denied coverage due to a so-called pre-existing condition in new plans

Each year, thousands of children who were either born with or develop a costly medical condition are denied coverage by insurers.  Research has shown that, compared to those with insurance, children who are uninsured are less likely to get critical preventive care, including immunizations and well-baby checkups.  That leaves them twice as likely to miss school and at much greater risk of hospitalization for avoidable conditions.

The new law prohibits insurance plans both from denying coverage and limiting benefits for children based on a pre-existing condition.  This protection applies to all health plans, except "grandfathered" plans in the individual market.  These protections will be extended to Americans of all ages starting in 2014.

• Your child up to age 26 can stay on your health plan

Young people are the most likely to be uninsured – with currently one in three young people having no health coverage.  One reason is that young people are less likely to be offered coverage through their jobs.  Under the new law, insurance companies are required to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents’ insurance plan, at the parent’s choice.  This provision applies to all health plans.  (For employer plans, only those young people not eligible for their own employer coverage receive the benefit, until 2014, at which time all young people up to age 26 are eligible.)

• Your health plan cannot put a lifetime limit on your health coverage

Millions of Americans who suffer from costly medical conditions are in danger of having their health insurance coverage vanish when the costs of their treatment hit lifetime limits.  These limits can cause the loss of coverage at the very moment when patients need it most.  Over 100 million Americans have coverage that imposes such lifetime limits.  The new law prohibits the use of lifetime limits in all health plans.

• Your health plan’s annual limits are phased out over three years

Even more aggressive than lifetime limits are annual dollar limits on what an insurance company will pay for health care.  Annual limits are less common than lifetime limits – but 19% of individual market plans and 14% of small employer plans currently use them. The new law phases out the use of annual limits over the next three years.  For plan years beginning on September 23, 2010, the minimum level for the annual limit will be set at $750,000.  This minimum is raised to $1.25 million in a year and $2 million in two years.  In 2014, all annual limits are prohibited.  The protection applies to all plans, except "grandfathered" plans in the individual market.

Beginning September 23, 2010, Consumers Purchasing NEW Plans Will Have The Following Additional Protections:

• You have the right to key preventive services without deductible or co-payments

Today, too many Americans do not get the high-quality preventive care they need to stay healthy, avoid or delay the onset of disease, and lead productive lives.  Nationally, Americans use preventive services at about half the recommended rate.  

Under the new law, insurance companies must cover recommended preventive services, including mammograms, colonoscopies, immunizations, and pre-natal and new baby care, without charging deductibles, co-payments or co-insurance.

• You have the right to both an internal and external appeal

Today, if your health plan tells you it won’t cover a treatment your doctor recommends, or it refuses to pay the bill for your child’s last trip to the emergency room, you may not know where to turn.  Most plans have a process that lets you appeal the decision within the plan through an "internal appeal" – but there’s no guarantee that the process will be swift and objective.  Moreover, if you lose your internal appeal, you may not be able to ask for an "external appeal" to an independent reviewer. The new law guarantees the right to an "internal appeal."  Also, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage for needed care without a chance to appeal to an independent third party. 

• You have the right to choose your own doctor

Being able to choose and keep your doctor is highly valued by Americans.  Yet, insurance companies don’t always make it easy to see the provider you choose.  One survey found that three-fourths of the OB-GYNs reported that patients needed to return to their primary care physicians for permission to get follow-up care. The new law:  1) guarantees you get to choose your primary care doctor; 2) allows you to choose a pediatrician as your child’s primary care doctor; and 3) gives women the right to see an OB-GYN without having to obtain a referral first.

• You have the right to access out-of-network emergency room care at in-network cost-sharing rates

Many insurers charge unreasonably high cost-sharing for emergency care by an out-of-network provider.  This can mean financial hardship if you get sick or injured when you are away from home. The new law makes emergency services more accessible to consumers.  Health plans will not be able to charge higher cost-sharing for emergency services that are obtained out of a plan’s network.  

For more details, consumers are urged to contact their individual provider or human resources department. Consumers can also visit http://www.healthcare.gov.
 

Martinez, CA – U.S. Congressmen John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek) and George Miller (D-Martinez) joined Bay Area residents today to announce major new health care consumer protections that take effect this week under the historic health care law enacted this spring.

For example, no longer will insurance companies be able to cut off your insurance just because you are sick, or set annual or lifetime caps on your coverage, or deny coverage to children with so-called pre-existing conditions.

The nine new protections in a Patient’s Bill of Rights were designed to put patients and their doctors in charge of medical decisions – not insurance companies. They will take effect for plan years that start on or after this coming Thursday, Sept 23rd.  This means that these consumer benefits will be in effect during the next insurance ‘open season’ for consumers who receive coverage through an employer or the next time a consumer re-enrolls in or purchases a policy from an insurer.

"These are real protections against insurance company abuses," said Miller, who co-wrote the Affordable Health Care Act.  "Just six months after our historic health insurance reforms were signed into law, important consumer protections are going into effect.  These protections mean that never again will your insurance run out or be taken away from you when you need it the most. And never again will a sick child be denied insurance because of a so-called pre-existing condition.

"Not only do consumers need to be aware that these new protections will take effect starting later this week – they need to know that these new protections and all the other provisions of our new law are at risk being taken away.  Republican leaders in Congress and the Tea Party movement have made it clear that repeal of the health insurance law is one of their top priorities.  They would put insurance companies back in charge of health care decisions for average Americans.  They are once again standing on the side of the special interests, not on the side of consumers and patients."

Rep. John Garamendi, who voted in favor for the health care and served as California Insurance Commissioner, said the new provisions taking effect later this week are critical for patients and their families.

"Health care reform puts you in control of medical decisions, not the insurance companies," Garamendi said. "From universal access to emergency care, regardless of your plan, to vital preventative care services, such as mammograms, consumers will no longer face burdensome out-of-pocket expenses. We’re putting patients first with this essential reform."

Below are the details for the "Patient’s Bill of Rights," the portion of the Affordable Health Care Act that go into effect on or after September 23rd.  Miller and Garamendi said it was important for consumers to contact their insurance companies directly to learn more about their individual insurance policy.  Consumer can also go to www.healthcare.gov to learn more.

For Plan Years Beginning On Or After September 23, 2010, Privately-Insured Consumers Will Have The Following New Protections:

1. Your health coverage cannot be arbitrarily cancelled if you become sick
Up until now, insurance companies had been able to retroactively cancel your policy when you became sick, or if you or your employer had made an unintentional mistake on your paperwork. Under the new law, health plans are prohibited from rescinding coverage except in cases involving fraud or an intentional misrepresentation of facts. 

Due to pressure from Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration, insurers agreed to begin implementing this protection early, this spring; so rescissions are now a thing of the past.  This protection applies to all health plans. 

2. Your child cannot be denied coverage due to a so-called pre-existing condition
Each year, thousands of children who were either born with or develop a costly medical condition are denied coverage by insurers.  Research has shown that, compared to those with insurance, children who are uninsured are less likely to get critical preventive care, including immunizations and well-baby checkups.  That leaves them twice as likely to miss school and at much greater risk of hospitalization for avoidable conditions.

The new law prohibits insurance plans both from denying coverage and limiting benefits for children based on a pre-existing condition.  This protection applies to all health plans, except "grandfathered" plans in the individual market.  These protections will be extended to Americans of all ages starting in 2014.

3. Your child up to age 26 can stay on your health plan
Young people are the most likely to be uninsured – with currently one in three young people having no health coverage.  One reason is that young people are less likely to be offered coverage through their jobs.  Under the new law, insurance companies are required to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents’ insurance plan, at the parent’s choice.  This provision applies to all health plans.  (For employer plans, only those young people not eligible for their own employer coverage receive the benefit, until 2014, at which time all young people up to age 26 are eligible.) 

4. Your health plan cannot put a lifetime limit on your health coverage
Millions of Americans who suffer from costly medical conditions are in danger of having their health insurance coverage vanish when the costs of their treatment hit lifetime limits.  These limits can cause the loss of coverage at the very moment when patients need it most.  Over 100 million Americans have coverage that imposes such lifetime limits.  The new law prohibits the use of lifetime limits in all health plans. 

5. Your health plan’s annual limits are phased out over three years
Even more aggressive than lifetime limits are annual dollar limits on what an insurance company will pay for health care.  Annual limits are less common than lifetime limits – but 19% of individual market plans and 14% of small employer plans currently use them. The new law phases out the use of annual limits over the next three years.  For plan years beginning on September 23, 2010, the minimum level for the annual limit will be set at $750,000.  This minimum is raised to $1.25 million in a year and $2 million in two years.  In 2014, all annual limits are prohibited.  The protection applies to all plans, except "grandfathered" plans in the individual market.

Beginning September 23, 2010, Consumers Purchasing NEW Plans Will Have The Following Additional Protections:

6. You have the right to key preventive services without deductible or co-payments
Today, too many Americans do not get the high-quality preventive care they need to stay healthy, avoid or delay the onset of disease, and lead productive lives.  Nationally, Americans use preventive services at about half the recommended rate.  
Under the new law, insurance companies must cover recommended preventive services, including mammograms, colonoscopies, immunizations, and pre-natal and new baby care, without charging deductibles, co-payments or co-insurance.

7. You have the right to both an internal and external appeal
Today, if your health plan tells you it won’t cover a treatment your doctor recommends, or it refuses to pay the bill for your child’s last trip to the emergency room, you may not know where to turn.  Most plans have a process that lets you appeal the decision within the plan through an "internal appeal" – but there’s no guarantee that the process will be swift and objective.  Moreover, if you lose your internal appeal, you may not be able to ask for an "external appeal" to an independent reviewer. The new law guarantees the right to an "internal appeal."  Also, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage for needed care without a chance to appeal to an independent third party.  

8. You have the right to choose your own doctor
Being able to choose and keep your doctor is highly valued by Americans.  Yet, insurance companies don’t always make it easy to see the provider you choose.  One survey found that three-fourths of the OB-GYNs reported that patients needed to return to their primary care physicians for permission to get follow-up care. The new law:  1) guarantees you get to choose your primary care doctor; 2) allows you to choose a pediatrician as your child’s primary care doctor; and 3) gives women the right to see an OB-GYN without having to obtain a referral first. 

9. You have the right to access out-of-network emergency room care at in-network cost-sharing rates
Many insurers charge unreasonably high cost-sharing for emergency care by an out-of-network provider.  This can mean financial hardship if you get sick or injured when you are away from home. The new law makes emergency services more accessible to consumers.  Health plans will not be able to charge higher cost-sharing for emergency services that are obtained out of a plan’s network.   

For more details, consumers are urged to contact their individual provider or human resources department.  Consumers can also visit wwww.healthcare.gov
 

FAIRFIELD, CA – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA) today is pleased to announce that California schools are scheduled to receive an additional $487 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds distributed by the U.S. Department of Education. To date, California has received more than $10 billion through the ARRA. The state recently reported that recovery dollars have been used to provide funding for more than 47,000 education jobs from April 1 to June 30, 2010.  

"Our public schools are the incubators of the next generation of Californians. We must continue to invest in education and our nation's future," said Congressman Garamendi, a former University of California regent and California State University trustee. "Multiple studies have shown one consistent rule in education reform: class size matters. Every teacher we layoff harms hundreds of students who suffer from reduced individual attention. This $487 million from ARRA will help California avoid more drastic cuts."

Last week, the House of Representatives returned from the August district work period to vote on H.R. 1586, the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act. This critical legislation, which passed with only two Republicans in support, is keeping 16,500 California teachers in the classroom. Nationwide, 161,000 teachers will keep their jobs. In anticipation of increased federal support, Vallejo City Unified School District rehired 59 teachers this month.

"Every student of history will tell you that great societies become history when they give up on education. That’s why this Congress went back to Washington this month to do the right thing for the millions of American families with school-aged children," Garamendi added. "16,500 more teachers are available in California to teach our youth because of the Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act."

In addition to the more than $487 million announced today, ARRA has already provided more than $10 billion to California with more than $23 billion allocated. Prior to today’s announcement, California had received the following in education support through ARRA:

• $5.5 billion in State Fiscal Stabilization funds to:
  • Help stabilize state and local government budgets in order to minimize and avoid reductions in education and other essential public services.
  • Help ensure that local educational agencies (LEAs) and public institutions of higher education (IHEs) have the resources to avert cuts and retain educational personnel and staff.
  • Help support the modernization, renovation, and repair of school and college facilities.
  • Help advance reforms, from early learning through post-secondary education, to benefit students and families.
• $1.9 billion in Pell Grants have been awarded to students attending schools in California. Pell Grants are awarded based on student applications, not by state. The Federal Pell Grant Program provides need-based grants to low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students to promote access to postsecondary education. The additional funding allowed the Department of Education to raise the maximum Pell award from $4,731 to $5,350. 
• $1.3 billion in IDEA funds to help ensure that children with disabilities, including children aged three through five, have access to a free appropriate public education to meet each child's unique needs and prepare him or her for further education, employment, and independent living. This money will also make early intervention services available to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.
• $1.1 billion in Title I funds to support schools that have high concentrations of students from families that live in poverty in order to help improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of failing to meet state academic achievement standards.
• $350 million in School Improvement Grants to support the transformational changes that are needed to turn around the nation's persistently lowest-achieving schools by using rigorous school intervention models.
• $72 million in Education Technology Grants to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in schools. It is also designed to help ensure that every student is technologically literate by the end of eighth grade and to encourage the effective integration of technology with teacher training and curriculum development.
• $56 million in additional funding to the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program to help individuals with disabilities, especially those individuals with the most significant disabilities, prepare for, obtain, and maintain employment.
• $21 million in Work Study funds have been awarded to students attending schools in California, providing colleges and universities with additional funding to provide jobs to students to help with their college and living expenses.
• $16 million in Independent Living Services Funds to support services to individuals with significant disabilities and older individuals who are blind to maximize their leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity, and to promote the integration and full inclusion of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of American society.
• $14 million in McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance funds to address the educational and related needs of some of the most vulnerable members of our society – homeless children and youth – during a time of economic crisis in the United States.
• $8 million in Teacher Quality Partnerships grants to improve student achievement; improve the quality of new prospective teachers by improving their preparation and enhancing professional development activities for teachers; hold teacher preparation programs at institutions of higher education accountable for preparing highly qualified teachers; and recruit highly qualified individuals, including minorities and individuals from other occupations, into the teaching force.
• $3 million in Impact Aid funds for school facility planning, construction, and repair.

WALNUT CREEK, CA – Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA), a former two-term California Insurance Commissioner, is happy to report that the third round of prescription drug Medicare Part D 'donut hole' checks have gone out to nearly 80,000 California seniors. Under the Affordable Care Act, seniors whose prescription drug costs are so high that they fall in the 'donut hole' coverage gap in 2010 are receiving this one-time tax-free $250 rebate check.  Experts estimate that more than a quarter of seniors will hit the ‘donut hole’ this year. 

"When Democrats in Congress voted for health care reform earlier this year, we did so with the confidence that we were improving health care access for millions of seniors," Congressman Garamendi said. "These $250 rebates, along with the free preventative and primary care available to seniors next year, are early steps in the process. In a few years, we will completely close the donut hole and continue to improve coverage for our seniors."

These checks are being mailed out every few weeks, as more seniors hit the ‘donut hole.’ In June, more than 80,000 seniors received the rebate check; in July, more than 300,000 received the check; and now in early August, more than 375,000 are receiving it. In California, 9,985 seniors received the rebate in June; 31,615 seniors received it in July; and now 35,370 are receiving it in early August.

The checks are just the first benefit from health reform for seniors in the Medicare Prescription Drug program.  Beginning in January 2011, seniors in the donut hole will receive a 50% discount on brand name drugs.  By 2020, the donut hole will be completely closed.
 
Congressional Republicans created the donut hole – leaving thousands of seniors to choose between buying the prescriptions they need and putting food on the table – and now they refuse to help close it.

"Opportunistic Republican politicians have been trying to scare our seniors into opposing reforms that actually improve their health coverage," Garamendi added. "If the Republicans had their way, millions of seniors would have no hope of escaping the prescription drug donut hole; Medicare would be decimated; Social Security would be privatized; and free preventative care would be a pipe dream. Our seniors deserve better than what Congressional Republicans openly envision for America."

Medicare recipients don’t have to do anything to get the $250 check – once their drug costs for the year hit $2,830 the one-time check will be issued automatically, but seniors should be on the lookout for fraud.

Making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors is only one of the many benefits for seniors included in the Affordable Care Act.  Under the new law, other benefits for seniors include:

• Beginning on January 1, 2011, provides that seniors will receive free preventive care services like mammograms and certain colon cancer tests and a free annual physical.
• Strengthens Medicare by extending its solvency by an additional 12 years, from 2017 to 2029.
• Includes Medicare efficiencies, so that experts estimate that seniors can expect to save on average almost $200 per year in premiums, by 2018, compared to what they would have paid without the new law.
• Continues to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare.
• Improves care by helping doctors communicate and coordinate.
• Expands home and community-based services to keep seniors in their home, instead of in nursing homes.

"Today the House of Representatives voted to lead our great nation down the wrong path in Afghanistan and Iraq. For at least another year, we will continue to spill brave American blood and spend tens of billions of dollars in the longest war in American history. I do not think a large scale military presence in Afghanistan or Iraq is in the best interests of our economy or national security. I want our troops home.

"I recognize that the threat from Al Qaeda is very real. With our allies, we must focus like a laser on eradicating Al Qaeda’s presence wherever it may be. I think a speedy withdrawal of most soldiers from Afghanistan furthers this goal.

"$32 billion is a lot of money. It’s enough to pay for the health care of 12 million children for a year. It’s enough to keep 500,000 police officers patrolling our streets for a year. It’s enough to employ 500,000 teachers for a year. It’s enough to provide 20 million households with renewable energy for a year.

"I am deeply disappointed by the deficit hawks who say that we can’t afford jobless benefits, we can’t afford to keep teachers in our classrooms, we can’t afford the infrastructure investments needed to continue our climb out of a recession, yet we can afford more war.

"We’ve been in Afghanistan for nine years, and it’s come at a tremendous cost. We’ve tragically lost more than 1,100 American lives and spent close to $300 billion. We’ve also been in Iraq for seven years, where we’ve lost more than 4,400 American lives and spent more than $700 billion. I do not want to see one more American lose their life in an internal Afghani civil war.

"I’m a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer, and I know that a foreign policy built in mutual respect and assistance can transform hearts and minds. I believe disengagement from war really means a return to the policies that put America’s best face forward in the international community. Diplomacy and development should be our goal in the Middle East, not the continued dragging out of wars without an exit plan.

"Regardless of where we may stand on war policy, we must always honor the troops. Our brave men and women in uniform and their families must always be honored, respected, and treated as heroes. It is an honor and privilege to serve Travis Air Force Base and the thousands of military personnel, veterans, and their families that call California’s 10th Congressional District their home. They deserve everything we can provide to make sure that they can thrive in uniform and in civilian life."

"Today is a very good day for Main Street and hardworking Americans. We have taken important steps to fight insatiable Wall Street greed and to promote long-term stability in our economy," Congressman Garamendi said. "We are adding critical protections for the American people, including homeowner assistance and the formation of an independent consumer protection agency to advocate on consumers' behalf."

Largely because of the collapse of America's financial sector, America lost eight million jobs and $17 trillion in retirement savings.

There are many new regulations meant to protect Americans from excessive fees, to end irresponsible lending, provide mortgage relief, and create more oversight and rating of complicated financial products. The law also takes steps to end 'too big to fail' banks without costing taxpayers a penny. The process would involve exhausting all of the company's assets and then additional costs would be covered by a dissolution fund to which all large financial firms would contribute.

The new law has been called the "strongest set of Wall Street reforms in three generations" by Elizabeth Warren, chair of the nonpartisan Congressional Oversight Panel. It is endorsed by the AARP, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Council of Institutional Investors, National Fair Housing Alliance, National Restaurant Association, Public Citizen, SEIU, and U.S. PIRG, among other organizations. Only three Republicans in the House and three in the Senate supported the bill.

"We passed a comprehensive and historic overhaul bill that the President signed into law today." Congressman Garamendi continued. "We showed the American people that we stand with them, not the big banks. Despite Republican stall tactics, Wall Street banks will no long be able to play Russian roulette with our economy."

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek, CA), a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, voted for two bills that will improve the ability of the United States to prevent and respond to oil spills. These two pieces of legislation will enhance research for oil spill prevention and cleanup and provide the necessary research to ensure safer, cleaner oil and gas drilling technologies. Together, these bills represent a comprehensive research agenda to enhance U.S. preparedness for future oil spills.

"Deepwater platform drilling is inherently dangerous, but until we finally transition away from drilling, it's essential that we require the best safety and response standards available," Congressman Garamendi said. "These two bills are a good first step. The next steps include raising the ludicrous $75 million oil industry liability cap for spill cleanup, ending oil subsidies, further investing in clean technology, and stopping all new platform oil drilling."

Congressman Garamendi is the author of the West Coast Ocean Protection Act, a bill that would stop all new offshore platform drilling in federal waters off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. It presently has 37 cosponsors representing most of the West Coast. Identical companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate authored by all six West Coast Senators.

"I was also proud to introduce two amendments to the two oil spill cleanup bills. The first will give researchers and scientists the tools they need to develop the methodology and technology to track and measure oil spills. The second increases the coordination between agencies, so that they can better respond to oil spills," Garamendi added. I am glad that through my position on the Committee on Science and Technology, I had the opportunity to improve our ability to response to oil spills.”

H.R. 2693, The Oil Pollution Research and Development Reauthorization Act, ensures the ongoing development of new technologies and methods to prevent, recover, and respond to oil spills.  The bill also provides for robust oversight and accountability of the interagency research and development program.  Furthermore, this legislation sets up a more efficient federal management structure. More specifically, the bill updates and improves upon the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

H.R. 5716, The Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act, will make oil and gas drilling safer by supporting research and development of technologies and practices for worker and environmental safety, as well as accident prevention and mitigation.  More specifically, the bill amends Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which authorized the Secretary of Energy to establish an Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources research and development program.  Some of the areas that will be researched include enhanced well control and integrity, blowout prevention devices, secondary control systems for well shut-off, technologies for accident mitigation, decision-making and risk management, and equipment testing for extreme conditions.

"These two bills help to ensure the federal government, industry, and academia are all better equipped to prevent and respond in the future," said Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN).
 

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressmen George Miller (D-Martinez) and John Garamendi (D-Walnut Creek) today called on the U.S. Senate to completely preserve the $10 billion in education funding found in the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act as approved by the House last month. They called for the preservation of education funding following a report by the Center for Education Policy (CEP) that nearly two-thirds of all school districts in America have used all their stimulus money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, prompting as many as three quarters of the nation's school districts to lay off teachers in 2010-11.

"Our children can't afford to lose a year of learning when schools lose teachers," said Congressman George Miller, Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.  "By approving this addition $10 billion in emergency spending, we could make a difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of teachers and their students across the country."

"The Recovery Act kept more than 400,000 teachers in the classroom, but now that much of that money is running out, our schools need a booster shot," said Congressman John Garamendi, a former University of California regent and California State University trustee. "The House set aside $10 billion in the supplemental for our teachers and schools. It's my hope that the Senate can set aside partisanship for the sake of our kids and pass a supplemental with education funding intact."

In May, Mount Diablo School District announced a plan to lay off 200 teachers. In March, Dixon Unified School District announced a plan to lay off 12 teachers, and Vallejo City Unified School District announced a plan to lay off 106 teachers. More school districts will be forced to act soon without federal relief.

The 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act creates a $10 billion Education Jobs fund to provide emergency support to school districts to prevent layoffs and keep 140,000 school employees on the job next year. An estimated 300,000 teachers could be laid off this year. The Department of Education will administer the fund and distribute the money to states through a formula based on total population and school age population. States will distribute the funds to school districts through their primary funding formula or through the Title I formula. The bill includes strict provisions that require states to use this funding only to preserve, rehire or hire new employees in elementary and secondary education.

According to the CEP, nearly 95 percent of the nation’s school districts have received or been promised funding from the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund authorized by ARRA. However, many school districts have already spent all money allocated. An estimated 68 percent of school districts expect their budgets, excluding ARRA money, to decrease in school year 2010-11. 75 percent of districts expect to lay off teachers because of this funding shortfall.

Multiple studies have found that reduced class sizes are among the most significant reforms available to improve student performance. Large classes are more disruptive and offer teachers fewer opportunities for one-on-one tutelage, contributing to increased rates of students dropping out of high school.