[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H622-H626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MAKE IT IN AMERICA: INFRASTRUCTURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2015, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee 
of the minority leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, this chart has been up, really, for the 
last 4 years, and I keep bringing it back because it is pretty 
important. This is about American jobs, about how we can rebuild the 
American economy, and about how we can, at the same time, provide 
employment opportunities--those middle class jobs that we all want to 
talk about--and do it in a way that actually improves our environment.
  Today, I want to focus on one part of this. I have asked some of my 
colleagues to join us, and Congresswoman Hahn will be joining us in a 
few moments to talk about a piece of this.
  In the Make It In America agenda, we have these items: international 
trade, which is critically important that we do right; tax policies of 
all kinds; our energy policy. Oh. By the way, in the last 5 years, the 
energy policy of the administration's has almost made the United States 
energy independent. We are actually producing 4 billion more barrels of 
oil a day now than we were 6 or 7 years ago, so we do have an energy 
policy--green energy, moving away from the greenhouse gasses; a labor 
policy; education, the training of our workers; research, which is 
critically important. We may come to that later today, but I really 
want to focus on this one which is at the bottom because it is 
foundational. The foundation of the economy of the United States is the 
infrastructure.
  Way, way back, the Founding Fathers--everybody around here wants to 
talk about the Founding Fathers and what the Founding Fathers would do 
and how they would act. I will tell you what George Washington did in 
his first weeks in office.
  He turned to Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, and said: 
Hey, Alex. Develop an economic development plan for me. How are we 
going to grow our economy?
  Treasury Secretary Hamilton came back--he formed a committee of one, 
and he came back with a plan of, maybe, 30, 40 pages, and in that plan 
was fundamental infrastructure development.
  He said the role of the Federal Government is to make sure that we 
have postal roads, to make sure that we have ports and canals--the 
infrastructure of the day.
  So, for those who like to harken back to the Founding Fathers--they 
ought to also consider the mothers. In any case, infrastructure was 
fundamental. Today, I want to talk about infrastructure, and I want to 
do it in a way that will really, hopefully, excite this body into 
passing a very robust, complete surface transportation infrastructure 
bill.
  Now, President Obama and Department of Transportation Secretary Foxx 
have made a proposal called ``Build America.'' It is a good proposal 
that covers all of the elements that we need--the highways, the ports, 
the railroads, freight. All of those things are in that bill. 
Unfortunately, it didn't have a hearing last year. Hopefully, it will 
be foundational this year as we consider in the next 3 months a surface 
transportation infrastructure bill for the United States because, in 
May, the world comes to an end as the programs of the Federal 
Government's for transportation expire. We need a new law going 
forward, so what we want to talk about today is that issue.
  I am going to take just a few seconds. Every now and then, somebody 
sends brochures and studies to us. This one came from Duke University, 
the Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness: 
``Infrastructure Investment Creates American Jobs,'' and they have got 
this little executive summary which is really helpful to us:

       Old and broken transportation infrastructure makes the 
     United States less competitive than 15 of our major trading 
     partners and makes American manufacturers less efficient in 
     getting goods to market.

  Representative Hahn, that is where you want to come in and talk about 
ports.
  This is Duke University:

       The underinvestment of infrastructure costs the United 
     States over 900,000 jobs, including 97,000 American 
     manufacturing jobs.
       Maximizing American-made materials when rebuilding 
     infrastructure has the potential to create even more jobs. 
     Relying on American-made inputs can also mitigate safety 
     concerns related to large-scale outsourcing.

                              {time}  1700

  One of the things that really, really bothers me about my home State 
of California is the way in which the State of California decided to 
build the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. We are talking about a 
multibillion-dollar project, $3.9 billion over budget, 12 years late, 
and the steel in that bridge came from China. How brilliant was that?
  One of the principal reasons for the delay was the steel was delayed, 
the steel was faulty, and the welds were faulty. There were 3,000 jobs 
in China and zero jobs in the United States. By the way, the Chinese 
demanded that they be the inspectors on the job--not good at all. This 
kind of tells us about why making it in America is important.
  There is another example. I don't like to brag about New York, since 
that is a long, long way from my district, but the Tappan Zee Bridge in 
New York was built with American steel, had a $3.9 billion total 
project cost, 7,728 American workers were hired, and it was designed to 
last 100 years without any major structural maintenance.
  I know Ms. Hahn is going to come up here and probably carry on some 
bragging. We have got a lot to brag about in California, but we cannot 
brag about what happened with the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge 
because it was a financial disaster. It was a jobs disaster for the 
United States, for American workers. Even today, there are continuing 
reports coming out about the faulty bridge construction.
  Infrastructure investment creates American jobs, and if we require 
that those investments be made in America, we are going to be talking 
about Americans going back to work. All of us talk about the middle 
class. Well, let's build the infrastructure, let's use American-made 
materials, and let's really build American jobs for the middle class.
  Ms. Hahn, I believe you have something to say about ports. The fact 
is that you represent the two biggest ports in America, you will argue: 
Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles.
  Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi, for having the leadership, 
certainly, on Make It In America, but really reminding our colleagues 
and all Americans how important these projects are in terms of 
repairing our infrastructure, as well as creating good American jobs.
  I am here today to join you and many of our colleagues in really 
pressing Congress this year to take action to improve our Nation's 
outdated, underfunded ports and to repair and replace crumbling roads 
and dangerous bridges.
  I serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I founded 
and cochair our congressional bipartisan PORTS Caucus, so I work 
closely with not only Democrats, but I am working very closely with 
Republicans.
  I do know--and I believe this to be true--that this is one area that 
we can

[[Page H623]]

agree on, and that is our infrastructure and transportation. I am 
really hoping that we can work together across the aisle and understand 
that making these essential investments in America's transportation and 
infrastructure will create good-paying jobs, will help American 
businesses to compete globally, and it will improve the quality of life 
for families in every single congressional district.
  As you said--and I will take bragging rights--I represent the Port of 
Los Angeles, and Alan Lowenthal represents the Port of Long Beach. 
Together, we consider them America's ports. They are the largest port 
complex in the country. They account for about 40 percent of all trade 
that comes through this country, it comes through our ports.
  I am a big advocate for these ports. As the cochair of the PORTS 
Caucus, I am an advocate for all ports in this country because the 
entire port network, the entire network of highways, roads, bridges, 
and infrastructure that move freight across this country, needs some 
champions here in Congress.
  This freight network is important for moving goods across our 
country. It is important for small businesses, and even if you live 
hundreds of miles from the nearest port, whether you realize it or not, 
everyone depends on our ports to get the goods to the stores, to the 
factories, and to the businesses that many of our colleagues represent.
  Maybe you live or work in an agricultural or industrial area. We know 
that they produce something that America exports to foreign markets.
  You may also have a direct interest in making sure that our freight 
network--our Nation's transportation system--is in good condition, is 
modern, efficient, and safe so that cargo can travel to the ports where 
it is loaded on the ships to get overseas.
  I loved that in the State of the Union last week, President Obama 
said that ``21st century businesses need 21st century infrastructure.'' 
The deteriorating infrastructure, crumbling roads, and collapsing 
bridges that are part of our current national freight network are a 
threat to America's prosperity and our global competitiveness.
  Policymakers here in Congress need to recognize the need to make 
repairs and upgrades, but we have been stuck on how to pay for them.
  I introduced a bill last Congress that I am going to reintroduce this 
Congress that will create a dedicated funding stream for these vital 
projects--and listen to this--without raising taxes or imposing any 
additional fees.
  I have come up with an idea how to fund our national freight network, 
and I am hoping I can get broad support in this Congress. Let me 
repeat: it does not raise taxes one penny, and it does not increase any 
fees to any businesses in America.
  What it does is divert 5 percent of the fees that we already collect 
on imports in this country--money that currently goes to the U.S. 
Treasury's general fund--and we can create a new national freight trust 
fund.
  We collect $39 billion a year nationwide in these import fees. 
Setting aside just 5 percent of those would give this national freight 
trust fund about $2 billion a year that we could use to repair roads, 
highways, and bridges--the last mile to ease congestion into our ports 
across this country. Again, it is not going to raise taxes or fees.
  I know, as you mentioned, Mr. Garamendi, we need to pass a surface 
transportation bill. I am working with Chairman Shuster and some of the 
committee members on our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to 
see if my legislation can be a part of that as a way just to fund our 
freight network.
  It is different than funding the highway trust fund, which is our 
normal roads and bridges. This is different. This is about the network 
that moves goods in this country. I hope you will support me.
  Thank you for allowing me to speak on this very Special Hour. This is 
an issue, Mr. Garamendi, I know that we agree on. I know that our 
Republican colleagues will agree with us on this.
  Maybe this is the one thing that we can do as a huge gift to the 
American people: find something in a bipartisan way, some common ground 
that we agree on, that will really repair infrastructure and create 
good jobs here in America. I think this is an issue that will, I 
believe, make the American people happy.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you so very much, Ms. Hahn. The proposal that 
you put forward almost seems magical. If it was magic, you would have 
figured it out--and you did--but to use money that is already going 
into the general fund and divert it back to what it was really intended 
to--that is the enhancement of our ports--is entirely sensible.
  I suppose that I am a coauthor.
  Ms. HAHN. I am sure you are. If you are not, you will be.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am sure I will be.
  The rest of the story that we have is that we need to take a look at 
our transportation infrastructure specifically in a very holistic, 
universal way. It does us no good to improve the interstate highway 
system when the link between the ports and the interstate highway 
system doesn't work.
  For example, I-10 in southern California that you and I know so very 
well is the way you get out of those two ports onto the interstate 
highway system. It is rather inadequate. That is an example of that 
linkage that you are talking about.
  We have many, many more things to talk about here. I welcome you to 
stay. We will probably circle back on it.
  I see my colleague from Ohio. I think there are some ports in Ohio 
that quite possibly are in Marcy Kaptur's district.
  Ms. Kaptur, if you would join us on this issue of infrastructure and 
jobs and making it in America.
  Ms. KAPTUR. What a pleasure it is to join you this evening, and thank 
you for your continuing leadership on jobs, infrastructure--jobs in 
America, not outsourcing our jobs elsewhere--and to also be joined by 
Congresswoman Hahn, such an incredible leader who has made such a 
difference not just in California, but in communities across this 
country.
  We really appreciate everything that she has done legislatively over 
these last 5 years to help our ports develop, to connect rail to ports, 
highway to rail. It is really amazing what her leadership has done in 
forming the PORTS Caucus. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Hahn.
  I rise this evening to join both of you. Obviously, I am in a 
different part of the country, but we understand what it means to Make 
It In America. I think the last company in Washington, D.C., our 
Nation's Capital, was the old Government Printing Office that used to 
print some of its goods here, but it doesn't anymore.
  To Make It In America creates jobs here, and what is interesting to 
look at, Congressman Garamendi talks about the transportation and 
infrastructure bill. No bill that this Congress could pass would create 
more jobs than that bill. We hope to have it cleared.
  I know Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio are working very 
hard on that. I know Members like Congressman Garamendi are helping 
lift them across the finish line.
  The Make It In America agenda will create tens of thousands of jobs 
across this country. Look at every community you go to, and look at 
what is unfinished. Old bridges are falling down. There used to be a 
song, ``London Bridge is Falling Down.'' Well, I think they are falling 
down in America now. Highways are not complete. We have old airports.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Speaking of bridges falling down, this is the 
Interstate 5 bridge in northern Washington State that fell down 2 years 
ago. Interstate 5 is the main intercontinental highway from Mexico to 
Canada through California, Oregon, and Washington. It created a bit of 
a traffic jam when it went down.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I can only imagine. We have so many unmet needs in my own 
community that spans a river called the Maumee River, the largest river 
that flows into the Great Lakes.
  We built a new bridge, but the challenge there today is with the 
weather. Ice is forming on the tensile spans, and they have had to 
close the bridge for 3 or 4 days at a time, for fear that these ice 
plates will fall on trucks and cars. We have to fix this problem.
  All these issues are all over the country, so the transportation and 
infrastructure bill is essential. I thought in discussing this tonight 
that I would put a couple of really important figures on the Record.
  Congresswoman Hahn talked about ports and her championing the PORTS

[[Page H624]]

Caucus here and how much gets imported into our country and what gets 
exported. Well, here is a chart that gives you a sense of how many more 
imports come in here than exports go out.
  Since the mid-1970s and then the passage of NAFTA here, this 
represents the growing share of imports over exports into our country. 
Since about 1975, our country has amassed $9.5 trillion in red ink with 
the world.
  That is hard to imagine for most people, but that translates into 
47.5 million lost jobs in our country just due to trade--not 
technology, but more imports coming in than exports going out. We have 
lost two-thirds of our manufacturing jobs.

                              {time}  1715

  So when the gentleman champions development in America which yields 
jobs in America, these are just the figures relating to one country 
with which we have held a massive deficit since the passage of NAFTA. 
NAFTA passed back in 1993. Our country moved into a gigantic deficit 
with Mexico.
  Recently, I don't know if the--and this means lost American jobs, to 
other places, and our people struggling, wages not rising, more part-
time work, fewer benefits.
  I don't know if the gentleman was able to see what happened with the 
recent Department of Transportation ruling. They gave a green light to 
long-haul, cross-border trucking by Mexican-based carriers, despite 
lingering safety concerns.
  It is the jobs, but it is also the safety that you talk about. The 
Department of Transportation simply looked the other way when the 
inspector general found serious flaws in the pilot program meant to 
test this new authority.
  Once again, NAFTA led to the lowest common denominator for the 
continent. Foreign corporate interests trump the safety of the American 
people. And we know that flawed trade deals cost us jobs. They harm our 
economy, and they put people at risk on both sides of the border.
  So it is time to start fixing the damage, not creating more. I thank 
the gentleman for allowing us the time to express our views this 
evening.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you so very much, Ms. Kaptur.
  You notice our Make It In America agenda, they have trade up here at 
the top, and you very well pointed out the problems that occur with an 
unfair trade deal, NAFTA being but one.
  At this moment, the President has asked us, Members of Congress, to 
pass what is known as the Fast Track, which basically gives authority 
to the President to cut a deal and then bring it to Congress, and we 
don't get to amend it. It is either an up-or-down vote. They say that 
is the only way they can negotiate.
  Well, if that is so, then that is no way to negotiate because we are 
the representatives--actually the Constitution very clearly leaves to 
Congress the issue of international trade negotiations.
  It is our responsibility, and I am not about to find a situation in 
which we give to the administration unfettered authority to cut a deal 
on international trade when you consider what happened with NAFTA, when 
you consider some of the other trade deals that have hollowed out the 
American manufacturing sector.
  You put that chart up so very clear. Associated with that chart are 
real lives, real middle class families. We had just over 19 million 
middle class families in manufacturing in 1990. It went down to just 
over 10 million as a result of these trade deals that you talked about. 
We are now beginning to come back up, principally because of cheap 
energy in the United States, natural gas specifically. So we have got a 
ways to go here.
  We need to be really, really careful, as Members of Congress, 
representatives of the American people, that we don't give away even 
more American jobs.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, I thank the gentleman so much for pointing that out.
  You know, when the administration and others talk about this latest 
NAFTA deal, they are calling it the TPP now. They always give it 
initials or something--NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS--it is always initials so 
the American people really can't quite understand what all that is 
about.
  This one they are calling TPP.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  Ms. KAPTUR. And the last deal we had was Korea. With Korea they 
promised, they said, we will be able to sell 50,000 American cars in 
Korea.
  Well, what has happened is they have sold, the Koreans have sold 
500,000 here. We never got the 50,000 in there, didn't get it--closed 
market, deal not kept.
  I have a bill that I have introduced in several Congresses called the 
Balancing Trade Act, which basically says to the executive branch, for 
any country with which the United States has amassed a $10 billion 
trade deficit, let's go back and figure out what is the problem? Why do 
we have a deficit rather than a balance or a surplus? And before we 
pass any more trade deals, fix that first.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, one of the problems--we spent a lot of time 
talking about this 2 years ago, and it has dropped off the discussion 
table, although it should come back--is the manipulation of the Chinese 
currency so that China is able to maintain a very, very significant 
trade advantage vis-a-vis the United States by the pricing of the 
Chinese currency. Grossly unfair, something that we need, as 
representatives of the American people and the middle class and the 
manufacturing sector, to forcefully address in legislation such as you 
have just described, where the administration is required to look at 
the problem, and then make suggestions, or correct the problem if it 
does not take an act of Congress.
  We just can't give it away. We are talking about American jobs. We 
are talking about the middle class.
  The President stood here less than 10 days ago in his State of the 
Union and talked about the middle class. He called it a middle class 
economic policy--absolutely correct.
  But, at the same time, this trade issue intervenes in that program 
and, quite likely, will further harm the middle class by hollowing out 
the American manufacturing sector. So let's be careful here about these 
trade deals.
  You talked about the transportation from Mexico. A few years back, I 
was the insurance commissioner in California, elected by the people of 
California, and we were discussing with Mexico the insurance on those 
trucks that, under NAFTA, were supposed to come into the United States.
  At that time, and hopefully this has been solved--I am not the 
insurance commissioner now, but I remember very well--we were unable to 
develop with Mexico an insurance policy in Mexico that would transfer 
into the United States and cover these trucks that were in the United 
States. They said it wasn't necessary.
  Well, my staff and I looked at the details of the insurance and we 
said, this isn't worthy insurance. This isn't going to protect somebody 
that is run over by a Mexican truck. So we demanded, and at that time, 
we actually stalled.
  But it appears now that the Department of Transportation is moving 
forward, and I surely hope that this insurance issue has been solved.
  Now, if I might go back to a little bit of infrastructure and the 
transportation issue, as we pointed out in our discussion thus far, we 
have to come to grips, within the next 3 months, with a new 
transportation, surface transportation program for the United States.
  And these are real jobs. For every billion dollars--again, this comes 
from Duke University, which produced this report, ``Infrastructure 
Investment Creates American Jobs''--the Duke Center on Globalization, 
Governance and Competitiveness, in their summary, they point out that 
for every billion dollars invested in transportation infrastructure, 
there are 21,671 jobs created.

  For every dollar invested in transportation infrastructure, $3.54 is 
returned to the economy.
  I have one of those little charts here. This is an older study. I 
used this 2 years ago. I am going to have to rewrite this because this 
one says, for every dollar invested in infrastructure investment, $1.57 
is pumped into the American economy. That came from Mark Zandi. But 
this now is 3 years old.
  This new study by Duke University indicates that this number, $1.57, 
really ought to be $3.54. So, wait a minute, fellows. This is even 
better.

[[Page H625]]

  So let's get this transportation bill done. Let's pump it into the 
economy. And if we just met the minimum needs, as we see them today, it 
is about $111 billion a year for the next 5 years that we should spend 
on this infrastructure for transportation.
  That is a lot of money. But even $100 billion, we would find that we 
would create 2,470,000 jobs. That is 58 percent more jobs than the 
current funding level would provide and over $400 billion in total 
economic impact.
  So if we want to build the economy, if we really want middle class 
jobs, we would pass a very robust surface transportation program so 
that the ports, as Ms. Hahn talked about, so that the highways and the 
trade programs that you talked about, so that all those things could 
come together, and we could really jump-start the economy and provide 
that middle class economic impact that all of us are now talking about, 
including the President. So this could be done, and we fully intend to 
do it.
  I want to pick up another piece. If you would like to join our--to 
come back into our discussion, Ms. Kaptur, please do.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Well, I wanted to divert just a moment, if I could, to 
tell the story of one valiant American who is a very hardworking 
American, and when we don't make it in America, what happens to our 
people.
  And I want to encourage citizens who may be listening to call their 
Member of Congress if they have a story like this from someone in their 
family, to please share it with us so that we can be a voice for these 
families across our country who have been harmed and are waiting for a 
transportation bill to be passed so they can go to work rebuilding 
America but, meanwhile, being hurt by international trade agreements 
that have outsourced their jobs.
  Tonight, I would like to tell, very briefly, the story of Richard 
Hahn, a tradesman from northern Ohio whose job was outsourced to 
Mexico, one of the countries we talked about, and whose current job 
faces new trade threats as foreign steel floods our market.
  Richard Hahn spent a long career with York International as an 
electrician, 23 years to be exact. He rose through the ranks to the 
status of 100th in seniority from his dedication and commitment to York 
International.
  But in 2001, York International closed its Elyria, Ohio, facility and 
moved production to Monterrey, Mexico, leaving 900 workers without 
work, without a paycheck, without any assistance to move on.
  After uprooting production to Mexico, York reached status as the 
world's largest independent manufacturer of air-conditioning, heating, 
and refrigeration machinery, and this left it as a prime buy for 
Johnson Controls, which acquired the company in 2005.
  Mr. Hahn and many of his colleagues were given no training or 
retraining to find a replacement job, but York International continued 
to thrive. Its parent company, Johnson Controls, even continues to 
receive Department of Defense contracts to manufacture the same air-
conditioning, heating, and refrigeration machinery.
  For nearly a year, Mr. Hahn was forced to accept unemployment as he 
desperately sought work in Elyria, Ohio. Many of his 900 colleagues 
moved their families out of Ohio, not finding any hope for reemployment 
in their hometown where they wanted to stay.
  Fast forward, a little over a decade now, and Mr. Hahn is facing the 
trade theft of his job all over again. Although currently employed with 
U.S. Steel as an electrician, his and 614 colleagues' positions are 
under threat of layoff. U.S. Steel will have to idle its plant in 
coming months because they cannot continue to secure contracts to keep 
it running.
  They have had international trade complaints about foreign-dumped 
steel and, unfortunately, Mr. Hahn's story is not unique. In fact, he 
said, his story is depicted best by quoting Billy Joel: ``We're all 
waiting here in Allentown, but it sure is getting hard to stay.''
  The promise of jobs and lives better than your parents' is 
dissolving, and free trade deals are to blame for the shuttered 
factories.
  Millions of Americans from across this great land have lived their 
own tale, in their own Allentown, and I encourage them to write or call 
their Member of Congress, just as Richard Hahn has bravely shared his 
story with me.
  Tell us, tell the Members how trade has impacted your life and your 
ability to provide for your families. The more stories we receive from 
the American people, the more tales we can tell here on this floor and 
work with Congressman Garamendi to free our Nation from these flawed 
deals and make goods in America again so that our people can lead a 
decent way of life and not have their futures taken from them.
  So I wanted to thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order 
tonight. I used Mr. Hahn as an example of someone who has the finest 
work ethic, so highly trained, struggling out there to try to maintain 
work. It shouldn't be this hard in the greatest nation in the world.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you so very, very much for bringing to our 
attention one of your constituents who faced this situation. There were 
8 million other American workers who found themselves unemployed as 
these trade deals went into effect and American jobs moved to Mexico, 
to China, and other places around the world. So we must focus on Mr. 
Hahn and on those who share that.

                              {time}  1730

  Earlier, I think before you actually came in, I talked about steel. 
Again, this article was from Duke University, and they have a chapter 
here, ``A Tale Two of Bridges.'' One is the San Francisco/Oakland Bay 
Bridge--they have the Chinese flag behind the bridge--built with 
Chinese steel, almost a $7 billion project, of which $3.9 billion was 
over budget. It was 12 years late. There were 3,000 Chinese workers 
hired. Very serious questions have been raised about the quality of the 
construction.
  The State of New York, the Tappan Zee Bridge, built with U.S. steel. 
The total project cost $3.9 billion. 7,728 workers were hired, and it 
is designed to last for 100 years without major maintenance. There is 
Mr. Hahn's job. It is that U.S. steel, made in America.
  I very quickly want to give two examples of where Make It In America 
really, really counts. This is one I have often used. This is near my 
district--in fact, about a mile or two from my district in Sacramento, 
California.
  In the stimulus bill, in 2009, there was a provision for some $600 
million, $700 million for Amtrak to buy new locomotives for the east 
coast here. This is an electric locomotive. There was a sentence added 
to that $600 million, $700 million law for it to be 100 percent 
American made.
  Now, nobody was making locomotives in the United States at the time, 
nobody. But Siemens, a German company, looked at it and goes, 70, 80 
locomotives; a $600 million, $700 million contract; made in America--we 
could do that. So the German company, Siemens, used a plant that they 
had in Sacramento that was making light railcars and said: Okay. We are 
going to make light railcars, and we are going to make locomotives.
  They are now producing the locomotives 100 percent American made. 
Hundreds of jobs in the Sacramento area. And then all across America, 
there are manufacturers that are making the wheels, probably making the 
doorknobs or the system that attaches to the electrical line overhead.
  Made in America. Why? Because Congress wrote a law--by the way, no 
Republicans voted for it; this was the stimulus bill--made a law that 
said it must be 100 percent American made.
  I don't have a picture. I wish I did. If I had thought about it 
earlier, I would have brought one.
  We are now in the process of deciding how much of our natural gas we 
are going to export. It is called liquefied natural gas, LNG, liquefied 
natural gas. There is an export plant, a $20 billion export plant built 
on the gulf coast in Texas, owned by a company called Cheniere. They 
are 3, 5 months away from the first export of that natural gas. There 
is a lot of discussion about how much we can export without driving up 
the price, and that would be very harmful to American consumers--home 
heating, manufacturing, and the like. But what they do export will take 
100 ships to export from that single export terminal, 100 ships.
  And I am going: Let me see now. Natural gas is a strategic national 
asset

[[Page H626]]

that has allowed for a reduction in the cost of energy in the United 
States, extremely important. American mariners are absolutely essential 
to our national defense, as are the domestic ships. Thirdly, the 
shipyards are essential for the U.S. Navy. These are three strategic 
assets that the United States has.
  I proposed an amendment last night in the Rules Committee that almost 
was adopted that said, if we are going to export a strategic national 
asset, then let us also build two additional strategic assets. The 
mariners, the captains, the mates, the seamen, let them participate in 
this export of natural gas, and let's build the ships in America.
  There are five terminals that are presently authorized for 
construction. Cheniere has completed a second terminal of about the 
same size. It is going in near Corpus Christi, Texas. And there are 
three others. So we may be talking somewhere between 300 to 400 ships 
needed to export a strategic national asset.
  So my legislation would say, okay, then let us enhance our Nation's 
security by building those ships in America. We are talking about 
hundreds of thousands of American jobs in our shipyards, in our 
manufacturing facilities in Ohio, building the pumps and the pipes and 
the valves and the compressors that are necessary. This is a big, big 
deal. And while we guarantee those jobs for the American shipyards, we 
also strengthen the U.S. Navy's ability to build ships at a reasonable 
cost.
  We could do it. We could actually do this with one simple piece of 
legislation that isn't more than 20 lines long. Now, that is exciting.
  Trains, planes, ships. It is in America's future. It has been in our 
past. And it is the policies, the policies of the American Government, 
that set these in place and in motion.
  Isn't that exciting? We can do that, Ms. Kaptur. We can do that. And 
we can move production to Ohio manufacturing, the shipyards on the gulf 
coast, the east coast, and the west coast. It is all there for us.
  Ms. KAPTUR. That is really exciting, Congressman Garamendi. And when 
you think about our strategic reserve in terms of the military, if 
America enters conflicts, often we don't have those fleets within the 
Department of Defense. We have to lease them from the private sector. 
So we would modernize that capacity for our country in the event it 
would be needed.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly so. Exactly so. It is absolutely critical to 
our national defense that we have a strong maritime industry. We used 
to have the biggest maritime industry in the world. We have just given 
it away for many, many different reasons. But it can be rebuilt.
  I want to give one more example, and then I am going to wrap. And if 
you would like to participate in the wrap, then we can do that.
  At this moment, Amtrak is out with a request for a proposal to build 
30, 33 new trains, high-speed rail trains for the northeast corridor, 
from Washington, D.C., to Boston, high-speed trains that can go 160, 
200 miles an hour, reducing the commute time. That request for a 
proposal to manufacturers around the world is coupled with a waiver of 
the Buy America requirements. We are talking about hundreds of millions 
of dollars of American taxpayer money and a waiver of the Buy America 
requirements because Amtrak said they don't build them in the United 
States. Well, that is true. We don't build high-speed rail in the 
United States, and we never will if we give waivers.
  But if we set in place a solid requirement that American taxpayer 
money is going to be spent on American-made equipment, we will build in 
the United States facilities to manufacture high-speed rail. The same 
thing applies in California with the California high-speed rail system.
  In our future, we will have high-speed rail. The question for us in 
our policy debates is: In our future, will those high-speed rail trains 
be built in America, or will they be built in China or Korea or Japan 
or Europe?
  I want them to succeed. But, by God, I want America to succeed, too. 
And I know that if we stick to this Make It In America agenda, we will 
rebuild the American middle class.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I want to say, Congressman Garamendi, you are such a 
leader for jobs in America. I am sure your constituents are cheering 
not just tonight but every day for you and for your work here. You keep 
the Congress focused, both sides of the aisle, on Make It In America, 
on trade, taxes, energy, labor, education, research, infrastructure, 
and, over them all, jobs.

  As we close this evening, let me say, this is what the trade deficit 
looks like today when we know we aren't building, whether it is tubes 
or whether it is trains or whether it is enough trucks in this country, 
cars. Imagine if we were to turn it the other way and America started 
making it in America and exporting to the world rather than the 
reverse. We would have such an economic recovery, it would astound the 
American people. It is amazing what we have been able to retain, even 
with this hemorrhage that has occurred over the last three decades.
  Thank you for drawing our attention to the importance of 
transportation and infrastructure as a key job creator in this country. 
If we could pass that bill early this year, what we would do for this 
economy, and add Buy America provisions to several of the bills that 
will be coming before us. I will join you in that effort.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. It is exciting, Ms. Kaptur. It is very, very exciting 
that a policy statement, a law put forth by 435 of us here and 100 over 
in the Senate can really dramatically alter America's economy and do it 
in a way that doesn't really cost us more money but simply requires 
that our tax dollars be spent on American-made equipment so that 
American workers can prosper.
  Now, if somebody wants to go out and use their own tax dollars to buy 
goods from China, that is their business. Fine, go do it. But if it is 
your tax dollars and my tax dollars, then it ought to be made in 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________