[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1421-H1424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             INFRASTRUCTURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Louisiana). 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 see my colleagues from the great South

[[Page H1422]]

are here, and they should be listening very carefully as we discuss 
infrastructure. I might like to draw the attention of the House to 
this, if I might, a fellow that we know etched in marble at the FDR 
Memorial: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the 
abundance of those who have much''--keep in mind the tax bill that 
passed here and was signed by the President in January. ``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.''
  These are words to legislate by, wouldn't you say?
  So I ask my colleagues to please keep this in mind and not leave 
right in the middle of a good discussion. If we are to pay attention to 
what is important here, keep in mind those who have little.
  It turns out that the great tax cut was probably best described by 
the President. Shortly after he signed the bill, he went down to his 
Mar-a-Lago club and told his friends who had gathered there, all of 
whom were the great beneficiaries of that tax cut: I have made you so 
much more wealthy.
  Indeed, that is exactly what the tax cut did. It made the wealthy in 
America even more wealthy to the tune of several hundred billion 
dollars. The American corporations saw their tax rate fall from 35 to 
20 percent, and the top income earners in America saw their tax rate go 
down by 2\1/2\ percent. It was marvelous if you have a great deal of 
money, because 80 percent-plus of the $1.5 trillion--perhaps more--of 
the benefits went to the top 10 percent: American corporations and the 
superwealthy.
  Is there such a thing as trickle-down economics? Is there really a 
probability that the superwealthy are going to buy more cars and build 
new homes--palatial palaces--in America with all of the new money that 
they received? The answer is probably not in America but probably on 
some island somewhere where they can use the new tax breaks for foreign 
investment that are in this tax bill.
  Oh, they were going to close the loopholes for corporations and 
individuals who wanted to go offshore. No, it didn't happen. Instead, 
new offshore tax advantages are created for American corporations.
  Were inversions eliminated? No. Corporate inversions are not 
eliminated. They are, in fact, continued and increased.
  How did this come to pass? It probably came to pass because there was 
not one substantive hearing in the Ways and Means Committee and in the 
Senate Finance Committee on the most important tax bill that has passed 
out of Congress in the last 25 years.
  So now we live with this. Now we live with the situation where the 
Treasury Department announced a couple of weeks ago that the tax 
revenues for the 2018 fiscal year--that is now--are down by a couple of 
hundred billion dollars.
  So what is going to happen? When the tax bill was moving along, all 
of the deficit hawks--and there used to be, I don't know, a couple 
hundred of them over here on my Republican colleagues' side--left town 
in December. There was not one word about the new $1.5 trillion 
addition to the deficit. But like most migratory birds, they are going 
to come back when the weather warms up in Washington, and they are 
going to go after the deficit with a vengeance. I will bet they are not 
going to propose that we go back and clean up the tax mess that was 
created.
  My guess is what they are going to do is go after programs. I think 
we know what programs they are, because the Speaker of this esteemed 
House has very clearly laid out in previous budgets that he wrote when 
he was head of the Budget Committee that he is going to go after Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--the programs of the social safety 
net.
  I had a phone call just a few moments ago from a constituent in my 
district, saying:

       You have got to understand that more and more of your 
     constituents are getting elderly. They are getting 
     Alzheimer's, and they need care. Their husband or their wife 
     needs respite care. What about the programs for that?

  I had the answer. It doesn't look good, because we know what the 
Speaker said he wanted when he was chairman of the Budget Committee, 
and unless he is having an epiphany, he is likely to want it again. In 
fact, I believe he already said they are looking at cutting Medicare 
and Medicaid.
  So what does that mean for the working men and women who are taking 
care of their parents? It means there are tough times ahead. It means 
that the proposed discussion about the reduction in Medicaid is 
$1,400,000,000,000 over the next decade. It means that $500 billion 
will be cut from Medicare.
  So, if you are a senior, you should worry. If you are among the 
working men and women of America whose father or mother is now a 
senior, you should worry.
  The most expensive illness now and in the future is Alzheimer's. So 
what of Alzheimer's research? It is going to get reduced.
  Oh, and that corporate tax cut for Pfizer? Do you remember how happy 
they were to have the extra $12 billion? Are they going to spend it on 
Alzheimer's research? No, they are not. They stopped their Alzheimer's 
research. Instead, guess what they are going to do with the money that 
they were investing in Alzheimer's research. They are going to use it, 
together with their tax cut money, to buy back their stock which has 
the marvelous result of increasing the value of their stock because 
there are fewer shares out there.
  It is brilliant for the managers and for the corporate officers 
because their pay is based on the stock price. What a marvelous way to 
use the tax cut: end research on the most expensive illness in America, 
Alzheimer's and dementia, and instead use that money to buy back stock 
so that you can increase your pay as the corporate president.

  Now, there is a good, American, capitalistic idea. That is where we 
are.
  So today we had a hearing on infrastructure in the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, a great opportunity to understand the 
President's infrastructure plan. Wow. It is big and it is beautiful, he 
says, and it is going to provide a gazillion jobs.
  We took a look at it, and we said: Where is the beef? Where is the 
money? $200 billion over a 10-year period, $20 billion a year, said to 
be new money.
  And then you look at the President's budget proposal and you tee it 
up with the infrastructure proposal, and you say: Wait a minute. What 
kind of shell game are you playing here? Your budget removes over $200 
billion from infrastructure, and you come over here on your 
infrastructure plan and you say you have $200 billion of new money.
  No, you don't. You really don't have $200 billion of new money. You 
have $200 billion of repurposed money in programs that actually devolve 
the Nation's infrastructure back to the States and the counties so that 
we will have a disconnect between an interstate in one State and an 
interstate in another State that connect at the State lines, and one is 
repaired and the other is not.

                              {time}  1645

  So infrastructure and transportation is a national network. But in 
this case, what happens is that the States are said to be given the 
responsibility and the Federal Government will simply pick and choose 
among those programs that the administration happens to like.
  I represent a rural area. Sure, it is nice to have an extra $50 
billion for rural infrastructure. That would be great.
  But what is the definition of rural?
  It is 55,000 people.
  How much territory? Is it an entire State?
  Well, there is no State that is rural, then.
  In a county? In a multitude of counties? In a metropolitan 
statistical area?
  We don't know.
  But I will tell you that I do have a rural area. I have got two 
cities, Yuba City and Marysville together, with 100,000 people. Rural 
is 10 miles down the road.
  So where is the line around this rural area?
  I am concerned, particularly because the Federal Government will 
maintain control of that money. It doesn't go out by formula, at least 
as we now look at the language.
  So it is a grand, a glorious, a wonderful, spectacular infrastructure 
plan. Incidentally, there is a small problem for

[[Page H1423]]

cities and counties. Presently, if the Federal Government is involved 
in a levee project to prevent floods, an interstate highway or one of 
the federally designated highways, or an airport, they will usually 
come up with somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the money. That is 
all well.
  Well, let's see. It is 70 to 80 percent Federal and another 20 to 30 
percent local money. In the President's proposal, that flips. The State 
and the local government come up with 70 to 80 percent and the Federal 
Government comes up with 20 to 30 percent. The role of the Federal 
Government is diminished. It becomes the minor partner, and the State 
or local community becomes the major partner.
  I had a meeting today with Hamilton City, a community of about 1,600 
people right on the Sacramento River with a levee that is maybe good 
for a 10-year high water, but not for any extended amount of flood 
beyond what normally occurs. They have been trying for 30 years to 
raise the money locally to match the 80 percent by the Federal 
Government. They did it.
  Are they going to be able, going into the future, to complete that 
flood project if this program goes into effect and they have got to 
come up with 80 percent of the money?
  It won't happen.
  I would dare say, all across this Nation, with the possible exception 
of Houston, Texas, no community is going to be able to come up with 70 
to 80 percent of the money for a flood control project.
  This is a role that has traditionally been the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Federal Government. But, no. In their infrastructure 
proposal, this administration flips it over so that now the great 
burden lies with the local government.
  ``Oh, that is fine,'' you say. Well, I think not. All across this 
Nation, small communities, rural communities, and even urban 
communities do not have the resources.
  So here we are. Here we are in a situation where we had a massive tax 
cut that benefits the superwealthy and American corporations. The 
American corporations clearly indicate--not from me; go look at the 
Wall Street folks that have done the analysis--clearly indicate that 
that tax reduction, which is now in the pockets of the corporations, is 
not being used for higher wages, is not being used for the plant and 
equipment and new jobs above the 16 percent. The rest of the money is 
used for acquisitions and buying back stock. So much for trickle down.
  Of course, how much can the superwealthy possibly spend? How much can 
you possibly spend on your McMansion? How much can you possibly spend 
on a fleet of Mercedes?
  The bottom line of it is, when it comes to infrastructure, there is 
no money. It is gone. It disappeared with the tax cut.
  Think about what could have been done if that tax bill had actually 
had hearings in which the Democrats could have put forth proposals that 
we have introduced in bills--proposals to repatriate the offshore 
earnings of corporations with a lower tax and then use that money for 
infrastructure. We would have real dollars for an infrastructure 
program to the tune of maybe $50 billion to $100 billion over a period 
of time.
  But, no. No hearings, no amendments from Democrats. No, not at all.
  We could have used that tax bill to create infrastructure banks so 
that there would be a financing mechanism for those small communities 
around the Nation that needed to build a road, needed to build a levee, 
needed to build broadband infrastructure for their community.
  But no, that didn't happen either. Not one hearing. Not one 
Democratic amendment to that tax bill. Therefore, we go into the great 
infrastructure program where we really need to do some things.
  What do we need to do?
  Some of you may have noticed just 12, 13 months ago the man-made 
creation of the biggest waterfall in the world, Oroville Dam, and the 
breakdown of the spillway. And 200,000 of my constituents had to 
evacuate within hours because that spillway, the emergency spillway 
next to it, was being overtopped by the river and eroded at the base 
and a 30-foot wall of water almost descended upon those 200,000 people. 
The number of deaths would be unknown, but it would have been in the 
thousands because they couldn't get out of town fast enough.
  Thankfully, the rain stopped and the reservoir receded. Had it not, 
had it continued and the water continued to spill over the emergency 
spillway here, it would have been an unmitigated disaster.
  Why did this fail?
  This failed for lack of repair, for lack of maintenance. It is just 
one example of the thousands of dams in America that could fail. We saw 
this potential failure in Puerto Rico with one of the major reservoirs 
there. Fortunately, a third hurricane didn't occur.
  Or maybe you are interested in bridges. This isn't a picture of a 
bridge to nowhere. This happens to be one of the main bridges on 
Interstate 5, an interstate highway system that goes from Vancouver to 
Tijuana, Mexico. It goes down through Oregon, Washington, and 
California. It is the major trade route on the West Coast. This is 
about 7 years ago. The bridge fell down.
  I could put a picture up here showing another bridge that failed on 
the Mississippi River, in the Twin Cities area. We could put thousands 
of pictures up here of bridges that could fail and have failed.
  This is an infrastructure structure issue. Where is the money to 
rebuild this?
  Well, it is in the hands of the corporations who are spending it to 
buy back their stock and to increase the stock price so that the 
corporate officers can have a higher paycheck.
  Oh, did I forget to mention how generous they were in bonuses?
  We are talking about one-time bonuses here. We are not talking about 
increasing the paycheck over time. We are talking about one-time 
bonuses.
  I do like my San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, that so generously 
said: ``We are going to increase the pay for the minimum wage 
workers.''
  Good for you. You are obeying the State laws that require minimum 
wage increases. Good for you, obeying the law. Take credit, if you 
will, but it is not out of the generosity.
  Where is the money for all this?
  It is gone.
  What if we had a chance in that tax bill to talk about a program the 
Democrats have been putting forth for the last year?
  It is A Better Deal for America, a tax policy that actually provides 
benefits to the working men and women of America and the families that 
are on the edge of poverty. It actually provides an infrastructure 
program that has real money--money that can be used to build the 
foundation for economic growth, money that can be used for employing 
people in high-paying construction jobs.
  By the way, it is not at all clear--in fact, there are those of us 
who think this may actually be in the present infrastructure plan--all 
of the talk about Buy American, Build America. It appears that language 
in that infrastructure plan would do away with the Buy American 
provisions in highway infrastructure.
  We can't let that happen. A Better Deal for America would be tax 
policy. It would be a program that would provide the education and 
training for the men and women who we need in our manufacturing sector.
  Every 6 months, I do a manufacturing advisory organization meeting of 
manufacturers. Every time over the last 8 years we have met, they have 
come back with the very same concern. And that concern is: We need 
highly skilled workers.
  How do you get highly skilled workers?
  You train them. You provide the job training for those who have lost 
their jobs, for those who want to improve themselves.
  Whatever happened in our high schools to technical training, 
vocational training?
  It is critically important. The programs that are out there need this 
support. The programs where American unions have apprenticeship 
training are a critical way of building our economy. They are highly 
skilled men and women that earn a good, solid living as welders, 
plumbers, and technicians of all kinds. That is what we want. It takes 
money to do those things.
  So what are we going to do?
  I don't know how we are going to come back from this tax cut. It is 
not

[[Page H1424]]

going to be done anytime soon. But I know this: we are going to be 
really, really short of money. It has been estimated that in this 
current budget year, the deficit will reach $1 trillion.
  I know that we are just weeks away from the return of the deficit 
hawks on this floor who are going to say: ``Oh, my goodness, the money 
is gone. We are going to have to make cuts. We can't have these kinds 
of deficits.''
  I can hear them already. I hear the voices of the past and I hear the 
voices of the future. I know they are going to come back. They are 
going to go after programs that are absolutely essential.
  We have got work to do. We have got things we need to do in America.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers points out where we need 
work.
  Aviation. We got a D for how good our aviation system is.
  Bridges, C; dams, D; drinking water, D.
  Is anybody here from Michigan?
  Is anybody here from the Central Valley of California?
  Shall we talk about water supplies?
  I remember when I was in college, you would never go outside the 
United States and drink the water from the tap. Now you don't go to the 
United States and drink water from a tap, because there is a high 
probability that it is contaminated. We have seen this story. We have 
seen this story in Flint, Michigan. We have seen this up and down the 
Central Valley of California.
  So what are we spending our money on?
  Not on drinking water, not on energy systems, hazardous waste, or 
inland waterways.
  Oh, this is a good one. If you are on the Mississippi and the Ohio 
River and you have got your tugboat and a fleet of barges, you depend 
upon the Federal Government lock system so that you can travel up and 
down the river.

                              {time}  1700

  If you are out there in the maritime and you are an international 
shipper and you want to go into one of the harbors on the East Coast, 
where is the money for dredging?
  Well, it disappeared with the tax cuts. It is not there.
  So is your ship going to run aground?
  No, you won't let that happen. What you do is you will go to some 
other port.
  Cuba. We love to talk about Cuba, so let's talk about Cuba. At 
Mariel, they are building an international port for the purpose of 
taking the new ships that are able to go through the Panama Canal, 
bring them to Cuba, offload them, and put them on a smaller ship so 
they can get into American harbors. Now, there is an American success 
story. We don't have the money to dredge our harbors, but we have the 
money for a new Mercedes for the superwealthy.
  Parks and recreation. Ports. Rail systems.
  Rails are doing pretty good, but not Amtrak. The President's budget 
proposes to cut Amtrak--to basically defund Amtrak. If you want to go 
on the East corridor here, if you want to go from Washington to Boston, 
if you want to take a plane, well, we know we have an aviation problem. 
If you want to take the train, I guess you are going to hop a freight 
train, because Amtrak isn't going to be around to run. That is the 
President's budget proposal.
  Schools, D-plus.
  Solid waste. Transit. Wastewater.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers rate America in the D range. 
We should be so proud of the most advanced Nation in the world. No, I 
think not. I certainly wouldn't take pride in our infrastructure. But 
it takes money.
  Where did the money go?
  Well, it just happens I like charts.
  The Trump infrastructure scam cuts more than $168 billion from 
existing transportation and infrastructure programs.
  I haven't talked about this one.
  Do you remember I told you about the flip--80 percent Federal, 20 
percent local flipped to 20 percent Federal, 80 percent local, unless 
you happen to be a private investor. Do you want to buy Dulles 
International Airport or maybe Reagan National--excuse me, I promise 
not to do that. Whatever the name of that airport here is. Okay, I will 
say Reagan. The Reagan National Airport. Do you want to buy it? It is 
up for sale, according to the Trump administration. And, by the way, 
the Federal Government will come up with 80 percent of the money. Not a 
bad deal.
  Slashes Federal investments and passes the buck back to the local 
governments. We just talked about that.
  We haven't talked about the environmental programs, the environmental 
protection programs that are significantly harmed, reduced, gutted in 
the proposal. The Senate is going to speed up projects. Hello? Does 
anybody around here know that over the last two transportation programs 
this Congress, with Democrat and Republican support, significantly 
reduced the time for an infrastructure program to be done? It is not 14 
years.
  The laws that have been in place now for the last almost decade 
significantly reduced the processing time for infrastructure projects 
in which the Federal Government is involved in, without harming the 
vital environmental protections that are out there: clean water, clean 
air, all of those things. Anyway, they are gone.
  We have a task before us. I see my Republican colleagues anxious to 
get up and engage me in a debate. If they want to, I could yield to 
them, and we could debate the wisdom of what has happened here, but 
that is not happening.
  What is happening is there is an alternative, an alternative that we 
put forth from our side that, unfortunately, was not considered in the 
tax legislation.
  We are going to be working on the infrastructure bill. I dare say 
that the President's infrastructure program is going nowhere in 
Congress. At least it shouldn't.
  We are going to have to find the money as best we can. And I have an 
idea. Over the next 15 years, we are going to spend $1 trillion 
rebuilding our entire nuclear armaments. All of the delivery system, 
all of the bombs, all of the satellites, all rebuilt. So will Russia 
and so will China, and we are in the midst of a nuclear arms race--well 
into the second quarter of a new nuclear arms race, exceedingly 
expensive and exceedingly dangerous, because the delivery systems are 
stealthy, designed not to be observed. That is a problem because that 
increases the risk.
  Maybe we can use some of that money to build the infrastructure to 
educate our kids, to provide for seniors who have Alzheimer's, to care 
for the caregivers that are taking care of their parents, to build an 
infrastructure program that really gives America a solid foundation for 
economic growth, one in which the research facilities are the most 
modern and in which the most advantageous research is conducted. Maybe 
we could find, amongst our choices here, money to build a highway 
system that is worthy of this Nation, one in which there are not 
potholes every 100 yards, one in which bridges don't collapse; that we 
can build water systems in which you can take tap water from every 
fountain in this Nation and drink it, without a concern about 
contamination of lead or something else. We could do that. We could 
make some choices.
  We can go back and revisit the tax scam in which there are specific 
inducements for offshoring American jobs. Maybe we can do that.
  Maybe we can look at some of the military spending and say: Why does 
it cost $1 billion to launch a satellite with one system and $90 
million with another system to do the same thing? There are things we 
can do.
  And, most of all, it is time for a better deal for America: a better 
deal for the working men and women, a better deal for the elderly, and 
a better deal for the children. That is what we need to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________