[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1107-H1112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
           BREAKING DOWN THE PRESIDENT'S INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Banks of Indiana). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I was trying to add up the number of 
times that we have been here on floor over the last decade to talk 
about infrastructure. I suspect it is maybe 20 or 30 times that we have 
talked about it, and this last weekend, guess what happened on Monday. 
The President decides to talk about infrastructure. So here we are. On 
Tuesday, we are going to pick up the issue of infrastructure.
  Let me just take a quick tour. Since they don't allow movies or 
slides here on the floor, we are going to run through these fast.

[[Page H1108]]

  Some of you remember this. This was 1 year ago yesterday when the 
Oroville Dam spillway gave way and we had the biggest waterfall in the 
entire world. It came very close to wiping out 200,000 people--bad 
maintenance problem.
  Or maybe this one. This is not the bridge to nowhere. This is the 
Interstate 5 bridge between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia. It 
collapsed, and I-5 didn't work.
  Or maybe this one. Oh, I think you have heard about this. That would 
be the water in Flint, Michigan. Still haven't solved the entire 
problem, but maybe several thousand kids and families were drinking 
contaminated water, water contaminated with lead.
  And I didn't need to go all the way back to Flint, Michigan, to find 
a problem. In my own State of California, many communities are facing 
the same problem: either contaminated water or no water.
  We have got an infrastructure problem: dams breaking, bridges 
falling, water contaminated. Are you wondering why? Well, this is 
illustrative.
  You see, way, way back in 1973, we were spending somewhere about $10 
billion a year on clean water and sanitation, drinking water. And over 
the years, we have seen a decline. This is constant dollars, 2014 
dollars. We have seen a decline in the purchasing power so that, in 
2016, we were somewhere around $2 billion, so from 10 to 2.
  Do you wonder why we have a problem? We are not spending the money on 
it.
  And so the American Society of Civil Engineers comes out with an 
annual report card. Now, if your kids sent home this report card, you 
might have a serious conversation with them.
  So Donald Trump comes into office and, whoa, we have got an 
infrastructure problem. And he comes up with a solution to address this 
report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers: oh, aviation, 
D; bridges, C-plus; dams, D; drinking water, D.
  Let's go over here; rail is a B. That is good. But most of those are 
private companies.
  Ports, a C-plus; parks and recreation, D; schools, a D-plus; solid 
waste, transit, D, D, D, all the way down. Yep, we have got a problem. 
We have got a serious problem.
  And so what does it mean if we were to solve the problem? Well, here, 
let's solve that problem. We will turn this around. Well, the problem 
is all of those D's that you saw.
  So what if we were to spend $1--how about $1 billion--on 
transportation infrastructure, the return to the economy is somewhere 
around $3.54; or, for every $1 billion that we invest in transportation 
and infrastructure, 21,671 jobs. A 6-year bill with at least $100 
billion of annual funding supports 2.18 million American jobs.
  Now, what is it that our esteemed President proposed? Well, here is 
his infrastructure plan: He cuts more than $168 billion over the next 
10 years from existing transportation and infrastructure programs. He 
provides Wall Street with an opportunity to invest and slashes the 
Federal investments and passes the buck to the cities and the counties 
in the State. That is his infrastructure plan.
  Oh, did I tell you he said he had $200 billion that he was going to 
use to leverage $1.3 trillion of private money? Well, it doesn't really 
work. And we are going to talk about that because what actually 
happens, that $200 billion that is so beautiful, so awesome, 
incredible--what is it?
  Well, let's see. I have already said that, from the highway safety 
programs, total, $122 billion; from the TIGER grants, which are very 
popular, that go out to local entities to build specific transportation 
programs like intermodal--train, bus, rail, highway stations--cuts that 
by $5 billion; Amtrak, cuts that by $7.5 billion over the next 10 
years; rural air service, cuts by $590 million; the Army Corps of 
Engineers, cuts that by $10.1 billion over the next years.
  These are real programs. So what is that $200 billion that the 
President takes such pride in presenting to the American public? It is 
money that is already spent on infrastructure projects. There is zero--
no, nada, no new money. He is simply taking money from those programs 
that I just described and transferring it to a new set of programs 
that, well, he will probably put T-R-U-M-P in gold across the top of it 
and say: Look what we have done.
  All you have done is to create administrative chaos. Not one nickel 
of new money. It is the repurposing of existing dollars and 
transferring it to new programs which, instead of 80 percent Federal 
money to 20 percent local money, he flips it on its head, and now the 
Federal Government will spend 20 percent and the local governments and 
State governments will spend 80 percent.
  Huh? How does that work? Where is the Federal investment? No new 
money. And instead of the Federal Government being the big partner, the 
Federal Government becomes the minor partner. What is that all about?
  Well, unless you happen to be a Wall Street baron and you want to buy 
Dulles Airport, in which case his program would pony up 80 percent of 
the money and the private investor would put up 20 percent of the 
money; and I guarantee air travelers, international and domestic, would 
be thoroughly paying higher fees for the privilege of going to Dulles, 
which is now a private airport. It doesn't make much sense.

  Or maybe you want to travel on Interstate 5 from Mexico to Canada. He 
would propose that we turn Interstate 5, all the way up the West Coast, 
into a privately held toll road, of which, presumably, 80 percent would 
be paid for by some loan or some grant from the Federal Government and 
20 percent by some Wall Street investors.
  Final point, and then I want to turn to my colleagues, as I said, we 
have been here on the floor perhaps 20 or 30 times over the last 
several years talking about infrastructure. I will tell you this: The 
Democrats are proposing a better deal for America. We want to invest in 
America, and we want it made in America.
  Oh, by the way, in the President's proposal is the elimination of the 
Buy America standards and the Davis-Bacon fair wage program.
  So we have a better way of doing it, and we are going to spend a 
little bit of tonight talking about how we might have a better real 
deal for America, not some fake program that doesn't have any new 
money.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the Congressman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price) to talk about infrastructure.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, John 
Garamendi, for taking up the special orders and for doing such a 
striking job, compelling job, of lining out what the country needs to 
do in the way of building our roads and bridges and our energy 
infrastructure. So much that needs to be done that would make a big 
difference for jobs, for our economy; and then contrasting that, 
unfortunately, with what the President, after a year of looking forward 
to this, seems to have come up with. It is just baffling, and I think 
we need to understand here tonight what is going on and resolve to do 
better. We have got to do better than this.
  Although the President is, of course, onto a major issue, we have 
always said that. During the campaign, in the early months of the new 
administration, President Trump spoke a lot about infrastructure, 
promised to put forward a bold plan to put Americans to work, 
repairing, modernizing our infrastructure.
  Now, many issues divide Democrats and Republicans, but that really 
isn't one of them. This is an issue that potentially, at least, unifies 
us, brings us together. During the last election, both candidates were 
talking infrastructure. It stood out as an area of common ground, 
potential bipartisan cooperation.
  Unfortunately, I am afraid, now, after a year, and after a year of 
concentrating on other things like repealing healthcare and a massive 
tax cut for the wealthy, now, finally, the President does come around 
to infrastructure, and, frankly, it is pretty underwhelming. The plan 
doesn't make good on the promise that he put forward during the 
campaign for a serious bipartisan plan. It certainly isn't bipartisan.
  It calls for $1.5 trillion in new investment, but it shifts the 
overwhelming majority of the cost to States and municipalities, forcing 
them to either raise taxes or to sell off public assets or to cut other 
critical programs. So it is, on the face of it, just inadequate.
  The Federal investment: $200 billion supposed to leverage $1.5 
trillion. And it reverses the split in terms of Federal

[[Page H1109]]

and State responsibility. That is an 80/20 Federal-State split now, in 
most cases. Now it is going to go something like 20/80, and the States 
and the localities are burdened with taking this on with very limited 
and very inadequate Federal support. So it is inadequate, and it is 
certainly inadequate as a Federal investment.
  Secondly, and my colleague has stressed this very effectively, this 
is a bait and switch. This is a bait and switch.
  I am the ranking Democrat on the Transportation and Housing 
Appropriations Subcommittee. So we are now, with the budget agreement 
enacted last week, looking forward, hopefully in a bipartisan way, to 
writing a transportation bill for the remainder of 2018. Transportation 
investments that have bipartisan support are now in sight because of 
this budget agreement. But then along comes, ironically, the 
President's infrastructure plan alongside his budget proposal, which 
actually decimates the transportation programs we already have.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Garamendi stressed that very effectively. I will add just a few 
specifics, but this is the most incredible part of this plan to me. It 
not only falls short, but it actually does great damage to the 
infrastructure investments we are already making.
  For example, we are building Union Station in Raleigh, North 
Carolina, at this moment. It is going to be a multimodal facility. It 
is going to facilitate transit bus transportation. It is also an 
intercity rail station with an Amtrak train leaving for Charlotte three 
times a day. That is going to be increased because it is a very 
successful run. Union Station, a multimodal facility: the essence of 
infrastructure, creating jobs.
  How do you think Raleigh is paying for that?
  It would be known as a TIGER grant, along with State and local 
participation. The President's budget totally eliminates TIGER grants, 
which have provided that kind of support around this country for 
innovative infrastructure projects, particularly multimodal projects.
  TIGER grants: eliminated in the President's budget.
  Community Development Block Grants: eliminated in the President's 
budget.
  What on Earth are they thinking down there at the White House, to be 
simultaneously talking about a great infrastructure initiative and, at 
the same time, taking away the basic bread and butter infrastructure 
programs we already have?
  Aviation: the President wants to cut Federal aviation appropriations.
  FAA facilities and equipment: cut.
  FAA operations: cut.
  What are they thinking?
  And then most incredible of all, when you turn to the ground 
transportation budget, they want to eliminate all new starts for mass 
transit in this country: cut the so-called capital investment grants 
radically.
  The President wants to cut the very successful Northeast Corridor 
Amtrak operations radically. He wants even more to cut Amtrak 
operations in places like the Southeastern United States, the Midwest, 
and California--these very promising regional routes.
  And this is an infrastructure program?
  It certainly sounds like an anti-infrastructure program.
  It does not add up. It doesn't begin to add up.
  I think this is the most outrageous aspect of this: that the 
President is coming out with what he markets as a new, bold initiative, 
and, at the same time, he is actually not just trimming, he is 
radically cutting, as far as I can tell, all modes of transportation, 
virtually everything we count on to underwrite and support 
infrastructure at present.
  Then, finally, the President is making a big thing out of rolling 
back environmental protections and limiting the review of projects. 
Now, we all know--and Democrats and Republicans have gotten together on 
this in the FAST Act, for example--that review needs to be expedited 
and review needs to be efficient.
  The FAST Act contains many provisions to expedite review, and those 
aren't even fully implemented yet. But here we come with the 
President's infrastructure initiative, which proposes the arbitrary 
shortening of deadlines. It purports to override the National 
Environmental Policy Act, possibly even the Clean Water Act and Clean 
Air Act. It is hard to tell exactly what he has in mind. There is 
virtually no investment in clean energy infrastructure, which one would 
think would be a major forward-looking component of any infrastructure 
package.
  Representative Alan Lowenthal and I co-chair a task force called the 
Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition--so-called SEEC--and we 
have released in the last couple of days a sustainable infrastructure 
proposal. When you place it alongside what the President seems to be 
suggesting, with some details yet to be announced, there is a great 
contrast.
  What we are advocating is that we invest smartly and we invest 
sustainably. We have no desire to destroy the core environmental 
safeguards. In fact, we want to have a meaningful, serious review 
process. We want to incorporate forward-looking sustainability and 
resiliency initiatives in our infrastructure plan.
  So I commend to my colleagues this report, which we just issued, 
which I hope will gain attention from both sides of the aisle as we 
attempt to deal with the President's proposal, to deal with the 
appropriations bills that we are going to be considering here, and try 
to build into our infrastructure proposals sound environmental 
practices, and sustainable practices, for example, taking into account 
climate change--global warming.
  The President reportedly has no intention of including that in his 
proposal. What a shortsighted thing that would be, to be building 
bridges and highways and other projects, and then some years from now 
find that the planning was inadequate to deal with the sea level rise, 
or whatever kind of effects of global warming we might have.
  So, again, I thank my colleague for helping us understand what we 
need to do as a country, but also understanding how we really need, as 
a Congress--and I would hope both sides of the aisle. We need to assert 
ourselves, not just assume that this is some kind of Trump proposal 
that we can't criticize. Or, in fact, we need to not just criticize it, 
but we need to do far, far better. So I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Price for the specific 
details. I am glad that he brought up the environment issues. They 
certainly need to be discussed.
  And he is quite correct, the FAST Act, which is now just 2 years old, 
significantly moved projects faster through the entire program--I 
suppose we ought to say the FAST Act had some logic to it--and still 
maintained the underlying strong desire to protect our environment.
  Climate change: he couldn't be more correct about that, and the 
specific programs that he mentioned that the President intends to cut.
  If this was some sort of a--I don't know--State fair, and you had 
somebody on the boardwalk with the shell game, that is what is being 
played here. Programs that are working--he mentioned the TIGER program 
and the funding programs that the States and local municipalities know 
how to use and are now planning to put their own money in--the 
President would terminate those and start a whole new series of 
programs. New administrative, new chaos.
  We have to make this point: all of us want infrastructure.
  Here is the report card: Ds, Ds, Ds, one B, and a couple of Cs along 
the way.
  Just to maintain these programs at the present would be $2 trillion--
not building new, not adding to what we have, but $2 trillion--just to 
maintain this.
  What does the President offer us?
  $200 billion. That is a B, not a T. $200 billion. The same money that 
we are already spending. No new dollars. Somehow that would leverage 
State, local, and private.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Price for bringing this to our attention.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman shares

[[Page H1110]]

my sense that we need to diversify our transportation system in this 
country. We, in particular, need to develop high-speed rail in these 
corridors where it makes so much sense. Raleigh to Charlotte has been a 
kind of demonstration of what is possible there.
  And transit is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. Our cities--
large and small cities--throughout this country are getting into 
transit: bus rapid transit, light rail, and regional rail.
  And the notion that, ironically, especially on the same week you are 
announcing an infrastructure plan, you would, at the same time, say no 
new starts in transit is just beyond belief.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, is the gentleman 
saying that the President's budget is inconsistent with the President's 
transportation plan? In the transportation plan he talks about new 
starts, new programs, and so forth, but he is eliminating those in the 
budget, transferring that money over to the new programs that I guess 
he wants to call the Trump programs. Is that what is happening here?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. That appears to be what is happening. Or 
else the OMB Director and the President's people in the White House 
doing this infrastructure plan never checked with each other.
  I do think the bait-and-switch aspect is the most incredible aspect 
of this because it really, really would damage transportation efforts 
that we already depend on.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Price for those comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a real honor and privilege to join both 
of my colleagues here for what is a very important discussion to have.
  I commend Congressman Garamendi for always being passionate, 
considerate, and diligent on these efforts around the issues that are 
germane and important to this country moving forward and being 
successful. So I thank him for being a role model for me here in the 
House of Representatives.
  Also, I thank Mr. Price, who has been a leader. I worked with him on 
several occasions in North Carolina on different issues. It is good to 
be in both of their company on this important issue.
  We are here tonight on this Special Order talking about the 
President's infrastructure plan. It is not really much of a 
transportation plan at all. What President Trump has proposed is 
another massive giveaway to big corporations.
  The Trump infrastructure plan would privatize much of the Nation's 
infrastructure. It would replace interstate highways with tollways. It 
would roll back environmental protection regulations and workers' 
rights. It would award infrastructure grants based on how much revenue 
is raised locally, instead of awarding Federal grants based on the 
project's quality.
  Mr. Speaker, President Trump promised America a trillion-dollar 
investment in our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. But, like always, 
the President has not delivered.
  This is becoming a theme with him as we move through different issues 
that this Nation faces. There is a pattern developing here. My father 
always used to mention that type of thing. When he saw issues or 
something that were going awry, he would notice the pattern in the way 
these things are addressed. There is definitely a pattern in the way 
the President has handled being Commander in Chief, and has not 
necessarily been in the best interest of the entire country, but to a 
select few.
  The Trump infrastructure plan is cut from the same cloth as the tax 
scam my Republican colleagues passed in December. It is cut from the 
same cloth as the budget President Trump proposed this week.
  The tax scam was a massive giveaway to the billionaires and big 
corporations, to golf course owners and to owners of LLCs. Now, I don't 
know much about big business and golf courses--I am a miniature golf 
man myself--but, once again, there is that pattern.
  What would be so important in the tax scam that you carve out 
something for golf course owners?
  Well, anyway. Can you say Mar-a-Lago?
  Also, in that same vein, if I am not mistaken, all of the Trump 
businesses that are still being enriched as he sits in the White House, 
which is totally contrary to what this Nation was built on, are all 
LLCs.

                              {time}  2000

  So in the tax scam, there was a carve-out for LLCs. Oh my goodness. 
There seems to be a pattern here.
  Trump proposed a budget that slashes more than $168 billion--$168 
billion from Federal highway, transit, Amtrak, and water infrastructure 
funding. He also proposed that we privatize the Nation's air traffic 
control, which would add another $57 billion to the Federal deficit. So 
much for deficit hawks.
  So, before even proposing his infrastructure plan, the President 
proposed a $225 billion cut to infrastructure spending, all so he can 
pay for his tax giveaways to the rich.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans want to work together to 
rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure, but the President's plan 
doesn't get us there at all. It is a partisan proposal that benefits 
the President's corporate friends at the expense of the American 
people.
  This infrastructure plan is a major blow to my constituents and 
everyone who travels along Amtrak's Northeast corridor. It proposes an 
Infrastructure Incentives Program that would award grants based on how 
much revenue is raised locally, instead of how badly needed the project 
is.
  Now, that seems not to make too much sense from where I am standing, 
and my constituents understand, and Congressman Garamendi's 
constituents, and the majority of people in this House, if you really 
pulled them aside and asked them honestly. But that is for another day.
  Take, for instance, the Gateway project. The Gateway project is a 
multiyear, multibillion-dollar project that will repair, replace, and 
expand the railroad infrastructure connecting New Jersey and New York, 
but Boston to Washington, D.C., as well. It is the Nation's most 
critical infrastructure project.
  The Gateway project will make commutes safe and more reliable for 
hundreds of thousands of people, and the economic activity it generates 
could create upwards of 100,000 new jobs in the region.
  This multiyear project, Mr. Speaker, is vital to this Nation's health 
and infrastructure. The Northeast corridor is the only line that is 
profitable for Amtrak in the entire Nation; and we want to cripple 
that. We don't want to strengthen that. We would like to cripple that 
more. It doesn't make sense.
  The Gateway project is something that is needed. It will put 
Americans to work. It will create a greater infrastructure and allow 
the two tunnels going into New York City now to be repaired. They took 
a terrible beating from Superstorm Sandy, and the corrosive saltwater 
got into a lot of those tunnels, damaged the electrical work in those 
tunnels; and I am glad my constituents and people going back and forth 
between New York and New Jersey don't get to see the shape that these 
hundred-year-old tunnels are in.
  So once we create this new tunnel, it would allow us to repair the 
other two, which is desperately needed--desperately needed.
  So it is the Nation's most critical infrastructure project that we 
see. The Gateway project will make commuters safe. It could generate, 
as I said, more than 100,000 new jobs in the region.
  The Gateway project is necessary to modernize Amtrak's Northeast 
corridor, which runs between Boston and D.C. It is a project that 
benefits people from States up and down the Atlantic seaboard. That is 
why the Federal Government agreed to cover half of the cost of the 
Gateway project, with New York and New Jersey splitting the other half.
  And if my colleague would--who has greater knowledge of these issues 
over the years--to have a State come along and be willing--you know, we 
think that 70/30 splits are good with States, but New Jersey and New 
York has said: We will do 50/50. Now, if we can't understand how that 
is a positive, and that the States are willing to do their part, then 
we don't understand these issues.

[[Page H1111]]

  I am new to this, so I would--will the gentleman elaborate on the--I 
have heard that 80/20 splits are good and 70/30 are great. And here is 
a 50/50 split, yet, and still, we cannot get the Federal Government to 
buy in, which, when Amtrak said they would take over the Northeast 
corridor, the Federal Government was supposed to fund them to the 
levels they needed in order to maintain it. And Amtrak has never 
received the dollars that was promised since the inception of taking 
over the Northeast corridor.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer the gentleman's 
question. It doesn't make any sense. What the President proposes, 
instead of the normal 80/20, sometimes a 75/25 split in which the 
Federal Government is the major partner so that these transportation 
systems are of national importance--the President is proposing across 
for all kinds of projects, wherever they may be, on the Northeast 
corridor, or on the West Coast, or anywhere in between, that he flip it 
over and the Federal Government becomes the minority partner, at 20 
percent; and the State, the county, the city, or in the case of New 
York, the tri-borough----
  Mr. PAYNE. Tri-State.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The tri-State entity comes up, in this case, as the 
gentleman said, 50 percent. But that is not good enough. He wants 20 
percent Federal and 80 percent tri-State. It is a formula for a major 
disaster for America's infrastructure, because it is not just tunnels 
and Amtrak, it is water systems. It is repairing the Flint system, 
repairing the Chowchilla water system in California; it is the flood 
control. It goes on and on and on.
  Unless, of course, you happen to be a Wall Street investor, and you 
want to--well, let's say you want to build that tunnel. Well, the 
Federal Government will give you 80 percent. You come up with 20 
percent. And by the way, what is going to be the cost to the commuter?
  So none of this makes much sense, except for one thing. Thankfully, 
the President, after a year plus, has come forward with a plan. We will 
work with that. We will take his bad plan, we will do a judo move on 
it, we will flip it, and then we will build a definite program for 
America. Let's call it a better deal for America, a better 
infrastructure plan. What do you think? Can we do that, Mr. Payne?

  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE. I think the gentleman is on the right track. We are 
willing to work with the President. And this, unfortunately, is another 
incident or an example of where his lack of knowledge of government 
operation is hampering what we need to do in this Nation.
  It is very difficult to learn on the job, especially when you have 
the job of Commander in Chief and you have had no experience with the 
government, understanding the Senate, understanding how the House--how 
it operates.
  We are willing to help him. We want him to be successful, because if 
he is successful, the Nation can be successful--not on his own, not his 
own personal success, but success for the Nation.
  I will come to a conclusion, as I see one of my colleagues who is on 
the Northeast corridor has joined us as well, but just to your point 
about water infrastructure.
  So the Congressional Black Caucus went to Flint to meet with the 
residents there, and Ms. Pelosi was on the trip and sat and met 
different people and what they were going through at that time. It was 
just sad, heartbreaking.
  So me, traveling back to Newark, New Jersey, which is the third 
oldest city in the United States of America, understanding if they were 
having those issues in Flint, which is nowhere near as old as Newark, 
New Jersey, what were the conditions in my community?
  And lo and behold, I spoke to several mayors in my district, and I 
said: You need to start looking at your water system. Based on what I 
saw in Flint, I am very concerned.
  And don't you know, that Tuesday, they found lead in 30 schools in 
Newark, New Jersey, in the water system.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I do need to move on to Mr. Cicilline here, but Mr. 
Payne was asking about the water systems. Just look at real dollars, 
2014 dollars, where the Federal investment has gone over the last 25 
years, almost 30 years. So no wonder that we are not repairing and 
rebuilding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me turn to Mr. Cicilline who, together with his 
teammates, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), developed a way of describing 
what it is we need to do. Last week, Mr. Cicilline took on this issue 
of transportation, infrastructure, generally, and made a proposal. 
Could the gentleman share with us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman 
for yielding and for his many years of extraordinary leadership on not 
only Make It In America, but on the urgency of rebuilding the 
infrastructure of our country.
  Tonight, I think the American people can see these two things really 
intersect, because what Democrats have proposed is for the Federal 
Government to be a real partner again in rebuilding our country, 
something that cities and States just can't do on their own.
  The Federal Government has to play a real role, and we have put 
together a framework for a $1 trillion investment in rebuilding our 
roads, our bridges, our ports, our transit systems, our schools, and 
making the investments that will create 16 million good-paying jobs and 
will create a platform to grow our economy, address urgent needs.
  You know, America used to lead the world, was the envy of the world 
in our infrastructure. That is no longer the case. We are now behind 
countries like the United Arab Emirates and Singapore, according to the 
World Economic Forum.
  As Mr. Garamendi put up there, the American Society of Civil 
Engineers gives us a failing grade on America's infrastructure. An 
estimated 56,000 of America's bridges are structurally deficient. One 
out of every 5 miles of highway pavement in our country is in poor 
condition.
  But, of course, we don't need those report cards. We don't need these 
reports to tell us. The American people experience it every day: being 
stuck in traffic, having disruptions in their rail service, having 
repairs to their cars. Our constituents feel it every day; and that is 
why it is so disappointing that the President has been unwilling to 
work with Democrats in a bipartisan way to craft an infrastructure plan 
that will actually rebuild the country, create good-paying jobs, make 
us the envy of the world again.
  Instead, he puts forth this sort of bait-and-switch. First of all, it 
is a $200 billion investment. Our plan is five times that. And then he 
says: Oh, it is really $1.7 million. Why? Because his friends are going 
to privatize public infrastructure and create tolls and higher costs 
for users.
  That is not what infrastructure is. Infrastructure is a public 
investment. The Federal Government plays a role.
  And then he proposes a budget that makes deep cuts in 
transportation--actually, almost as much as he proposed spending. So it 
is like, I am willing to invest zero in infrastructure is basically 
what the President is saying.
  We need a real infrastructure plan. As Mr. Garamendi said, we put 
forth a better deal to rebuild America, a real investment of 
infrastructure that will also protect environmental standards, worker 
rights, create good-paying jobs.
  Instead, what the President proposed, after all this fanfare, is a 
proposal one-fifth the size, while, at the same time, he is making deep 
cuts in infrastructure programs and shreds environmental protections, 
shreds worker rights.
  We, of course, put in our plan ways to accelerate so these things can 
move forward, but it has got to be done in a way that respects labor 
and environmental standards.
  Mr. Garamendi has been here longer than I have. That is sort of sad. 
This was always a bipartisan issue. We could agree on the urgency, the 
necessity of rebuilding our country.

                              {time}  2015

  It should be about national priority.
  We should all be committed to doing this. This is another flimflam. 
This proposal is basically to privatize public infrastructure, make big 
corporations and wealth investors rich and let working class and middle 
class folks pay for it.
  It is the same thing we saw in the tax bill, the same thing we saw in 
the

[[Page H1112]]

budget. It is very disappointing, and I am hoping the President will 
study the Democratic framework and work with us to actually invest in 
and rebuild our country in a way that we can all be proud of.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, there are so many things we need to talk 
about.
  First of all, that $200 billion is simply repurposing existing 
programs, and they are laid out here. The highway fund, $122 billion 
reduced, transferred over to his new program, which is really, really 
strange. He calls it $100 billion of innovation.
  Who is going to determine what is innovative? Who is going to 
determine what is going to be funded?
  A whole new administrative and serious chaos is going to occur--TIGER 
grants, gone, Amtrak. Mr. Payne was just talking about Amtrak and the 
importance here in the Northeast corridor.
  I am from California, but I have got to tell you, I care a great deal 
about Amtrak because that is how I like to get from Washington to New 
York City. That is the best way to do it. Airplanes are fine, but, 
actually, Amtrak is just faster if you want to get downtown to 
downtown.
  But not to worry. He is going to privatize Reagan and Dulles. And you 
think that is going to work out well for us? Oh, if you want to pay 
more money, yes. Rural air service.
  Army Corps of Engineers, extremely important to us on the West Coast, 
in my district. I have quite possibly the highest flood potential of 
any place outside of New Orleans, and we depend upon this, and yet they 
are going to cut it by $10 billion.
  It goes on and on and on. This is just the beginning of what is 
proposed. It is a massive shell game. The money is under this shell. 
No, the money is under that shell. It is the same money back and forth.
  We need a real program, and I am so pleased that you and your 
colleagues put together a real trillion-dollar program. It is solid. It 
is foundational. And what an opportunity was missed in this wonderful 
Christmas gift that the President gave to whom? The top 1 percent and 
American corporations.
  Ponder this for a moment: For every 1 percent reduction in the 
Federal corporate tax rate, it is $100 billion.
  Corporations and the Chamber of Commerce were saying from 35 take it 
down to 25 percent. No. Our Republican colleagues and the President 
went all the way to 21 percent. Let's see, 25, 21, 4--4 percentage 
points. That is $400 billion over 10 years.
  Think of the possibilities if, instead of that money flowing to 
corporations who apparently are going to use that money for stock 
buybacks and dividends, not for new investments--oh, excuse me. They 
did say they had increased the wages. Do a careful study. Most of those 
wage increases are in States and localities that have increased the 
minimum wage.
  So $400 billion right there. Could it have been used? Yes. Foreign 
earnings? Mr. Delaney, 40 Democrats, 40 Republicans put on the floor a 
proposal to repatriate those foreign earnings back here to the United 
States, very low tax rate, far lower than what is in the tax bill if 
that money was going into an infrastructure bank, into investments, 
real investments in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Cicilline has worked long and hard on this. I 
would like to hear more. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the 
President proposed and the Republicans passed a tax scam that rewarded 
the wealthiest people in this country and the biggest corporations. 
Eighty-three percent of that tax cut went to the top 1 percent.
  It created a debt of $1.5 trillion plus interest--over $2 trillion--
for the next generation. Can you imagine if, instead of a giveaway to 
people who didn't need it, that money were invested in rebuilding our 
country? You could create 16 million good-paying jobs. You could create 
an incredible power for our economy so we can move goods and services 
and information to rebuild the economy.
  But then you think about the willingness to give away that amount of 
money to the top 1 percent, 83 percent of the tax cut, if, instead, you 
had invested it in this urgent priority that impacts the daily lives of 
every single American, what a difference it would have made.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) 
for the many, many years that he has worked on this issue and 
underscoring every week the importance of investing in products made in 
America, and now making sure that, as we rebuild America, that we focus 
on products and innovative materials that are made here in the USA.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cicilline seems to have prompted some 
energy and excitement for Mr. Payne. It seems as though he wanted to 
jump in and say a few more words. I yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank both of my 
colleagues and Mr. Price for really showing a youngster at this how to 
engage the American people.
  And these issues, Mr. Speaker, are critical to Americans across the 
Nation. And, yes, there is a swath that does not have these issues to 
worry about, but there are people every single day who need to have us 
address these issues in the manner in which we are speaking.
  Everyone is not well off. Everyone is not able to buy for themselves. 
Everyone is not the owner of a golf course. Everyone is not the 
President of an LLC.
  There are hardworking people. There are people who need jobs. 
Reinvesting in infrastructure will put Americans to work, will give all 
Americans the quality of life that they deserve in this Nation if they 
are willing to work for it, and we understand that. But give them the 
opportunity to work for it.

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that we are 
going to talk about over the next several months.
  The President did a good thing by putting the infrastructure program 
on the front burner. Now, obviously, from what I have said this last 
hour and my colleagues, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Price, the 
proposal doesn't fly. It is not a solid proposal that will solve the 
problems of America in a way that is good for the people you just 
talked about, the working men and women and the families of America.
  But we can work together on this, the program that the Democrats have 
put out, A Better Deal for America, an infrastructure plan that 
includes all of the elements. We haven't talked about broadband and the 
availability of broadband in rural areas, which I happen to represent, 
high-speed internet, but that is also a problem in the urban areas.
  We have a common interest in a good, solid infrastructure plan. 
Unfortunately, we are looking at the deficit hawks returning. They 
disappeared last November and December when the tax bill went through. 
In fact, the President's budget contemplates a $1 trillion deficit each 
and every year for the next 10 years.
  So where's the money?
  Well, $1.5 trillion wound up in the top 1 percent and for the 
American corporations and the LLCs and golf courses, as you said. That 
is money that could have been used for the infrastructure, building the 
foundation for economic growth, educating, reeducating, teaching the 
skills.
  Now, the President mentioned that in his address on infrastructure, 
and good. But where's the money? Show me the money.
  Well, it is a shell game. It ends one program, starts a new one. 
Administrative chaos will ensue. We need real, solid investment, and we 
can do it. The proposals are there.
  And we are going to talk about this every week, every day, every 
community meeting. We are going to talk about the tax scam and where 
the money went. We are going to talk about the wealthy getting 
wealthier. We will talk about income inequality and the way in which it 
invests, it actually creates more. And we are going to talk about the 
great missed opportunities: education, highways, water systems, 
sanitation systems, ports, multimodal. That is what we need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I am losing my voice, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________