[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 7, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3469-H3472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that occasionally 
happens here on the floor of the House late at night, when most 
everybody is doing something else, is an opportunity to hear what our 
Republican colleagues want to talk about, and I must commend them.
  I actually sat through a very fascinating discussion on the American 
economy by Mr. Schweikert about jobs, about the development of the 
workforce and the way it relates to Social Security.

[[Page H3470]]

  Very, very interesting. And I just wish there were 433 or 434 others 
that could have listened to what he had to say. And he very well 
described a fascinating part of the American economy and how it might 
relate to our future.
  I am going to go into it in a few moments.
  I had no idea that our colleague was going to pick up the short line 
railroad issue, which is a big deal in my district. I have a very large 
agriculture district in California, and the short line railroads are 
critically important. And as we talk about infrastructure--yeah--we 
really ought to be considering the first and the last mile. In other 
words, the short line railroads and how they fit into this 
transportation system that is so critically important to the American 
economy.
  Fascinating. I want to commend my Republican colleagues for bringing 
all of that to the floor, and I am going to make a few comments about 
it.
  Let's start with Mr. Schweikert on the issue of Social Security and 
growing the jobs.
  He is absolutely correct. If we have a robust economy, if the men and 
women of America are working, they will be paying into Social Security 
insurance systems and the life, the viability, and the financial 
integrity of the Social Security system will be improved.
  One of the facts that Mr. Schweikert, my friend from Arizona, pointed 
out is that, already with the economy as it is, we have extended, by 1 
year, the financial viability of Social Security.
  Now, think for a few moments. And my colleague didn't bring this up, 
but if the minimum wage, either legally in law or in competition for 
quality workers, were to increase, say, across the Nation to $15 an 
hour, then that much more revenue would flow into the Social Security 
system.
  So as we think about these things and as he correctly pointed out, 
high employment, very low unemployment, is a benefit to the viability 
of Social Security, to say nothing of the viability of the individual 
that is able to earn a living, to participate in whichever way they may 
desire to engage in the economic activities of this Nation.
  All very, very good points, and I really want to commend them for 
that.
  One issue that was discussed, but I don't think was fully explained, 
is how do you prepare people.
  Years and years ago in California, in the 1980s, I led a committee on 
the future of the California economy. And we studied the California 
economy, we studied the world economy, the history of the growth of the 
California economy, which today remains the largest economy--I guess, 
it is fifth largest economy in the world--and one of the most rapid-
growing and one of the most advanced.
  We said then that if a government--really, the people--of a society, 
were to invest in education, and if you had the best educated workforce 
in the world, you would have the best economy.
  Now, California does not have the best education system at K through 
12. Community college and the university systems, public and private, 
are extraordinary, literally, the best in the world.
  Now, if we were to add that same principle to the American economy, 
then those men and women that are ill-prepared to enter a modern 
workforce, could--in the K through 12 system, high school--begin their 
preparation to enter into the workforce at a skilled level.
  Maybe that skill is computer science, and all of that, or maybe it is 
welding, or in the construction trades. Whatever it is, they would be 
prepared.
  And so as we look at the options that were discussed first by Mr. 
Schweikert as he talked about the workforce, I would suggest that he 
look at this issue of education. I know he mentioned it, but how do we 
then fund it. And here is where we ought to have an interesting debate.
  In December of 2017, my Republican colleagues and the President 
decided that the way to grow the economy was to massively cut taxes, 
and they did. Probably a trillion and a half dollars over the next 10 
years--a massive, massive tax cut--that significantly reduced the 
revenue to the Federal Government.
  Choices were made in that process.
  The choice that was made was to reduce taxes a little bit across the 
board. Working men and women and families did receive a tax reduction.
  In my view, it was very small, and certainly statistically--and by 
the numbers--very, very small compared to the top 10 percent, the top 1 
percent that received a massive tax cut. And American corporations saw 
their tax rate fall from 35 percent down to 20 percent.
  Now, that was supposed to create massive economic growth, and it 
could be argued that we have had a good economy for the last year or 
so. And my colleagues did put up some charts to support that argument; 
however, we need to consider some of the underlying implications of 
that.
  First of all, who got the great bulk? 90 percent--I guess, about 80 
percent--of that great tax reduction went to the superwealthy and the 
corporations.

                              {time}  2030

  What did they do with it? Did they invest in the elements of economic 
growth, education, research, capital outlay in businesses, and 
transportation and infrastructure? Was that where the tax reductions 
were invested? Well, no.
  The corporations used the clear majority, in the 60 to 70 percent 
range, of their reduced tax for stock buyback, which had the wonderful 
effect of driving up the price of stock.
  Who benefited from that? Was it the working men and women in the 
shipyards or on the short-line railroads, or the teachers in education? 
No. It was the top 10 percent who owned the stock.
  Let's think this through. Now, nonetheless, the economy has grown, 
and I would posit that one of the reasons the economy has grown is the 
Keynesian economic theory. The Keynesian economic theory, developed in 
the 1930s with the Great Depression, was that when the economy is slow 
or depressed, government steps in with deficit spending. Government 
supports the economy with deficit spending.
  Guess what is happening today: massive deficit spending by the 
government, tax reductions, $1.5 trillion gone this year, a $1 trillion 
deficit for the Federal Government. By the facts, massive deficit 
spending by the government, not in education, not in infrastructure, 
but, rather, in the military and, interestingly enough, through the tax 
policy so that the great benefit went to the top 10 percent. 
Nonetheless, we have seen a stimulated economy, as Keynes suggested 
would happen with deficit spending.
  Mr. Schweikert correctly points out that we have not seen the 
inflation, thankfully, and interest rates have remained low. I would 
posit the reason for that is that we are still importing cheap products 
from around the world, and despite the chaos here in Washington, D.C., 
the safest bet in the world is America. People are continuing to buy 
American bonds and invest in America, bonds and debt, all of which has 
kept the interest rates low.
  Here is what I would suggest we look at, and there is a lot of 
opportunity that exists. I was really enthusiastically listening to Mr. 
Schweikert as he laid out his proposals and his description of the 
economy and the labor force. I would suggest that we continue this 
debate.
  I spoke to the gentleman a few moments ago. I said: Let's get in a 
colloquy back here. You can open with your discussion, and I will come 
back with my side of it. I think we have some opportunity here to 
really develop some decent policy.
  Let's take investing. There is a lot of talk about infrastructure 
investing. We are going to have to find the money for that. Can we do 
it all on debt with deficit financing? I don't think so. I think there 
is going to be some limit to that, so we need to talk about tax 
revenue. We might want to go back and revisit the 2017 tax cut and who 
benefited and what the opportunities might be to rearrange that 
equation.
  What would we invest in? Infrastructure. Now, if we are going to 
invest in infrastructure, we already know we are short of skilled 
labor. That brings us to education and labor force preparation. Is 
there a role for the Federal Government here, together with the State 
governments and businesses, to develop the workforce, to train the 
workforce? The answer is absolutely yes.
  We know how to do this. This has been done before during World War 
II. As Mr. Schweikert pointed out correctly, the millennial women 
joining

[[Page H3471]]

the labor force--guess who the millennial women were in 1942 and 1943? 
Yes, they were Rosie the Riveter. Who trained them in the government 
contracts to the shipbuilders, to the tank builders, to the truck 
builders? There was money in those contracts to train the workforce. 
The government, together with the private sector, trained the 
workforce. The models are there.
  We do have community colleges. We do have apprenticeship programs 
with labor unions, labor-management apprenticeship programs. All of 
those are there.
  If we need a well-trained workforce, we don't need to reinvent it. It 
is already available to us: labor-management apprenticeship programs 
and the Federal Government providing incentives in the contracts for 
shipbuilding.
  I was talking to one of my Democratic colleagues about a shipyard 
that was unable to have trained workers: welders, shipbuilders, 
plumbers, pipefitters, and the like. The company was not investing in 
the workforce, in the apprenticeship programs. That can be solved.
  If we need to subsidize that through the contracts, do it. Set it 
aside, make it a special part of it. Yes, you are going to build naval 
ships, but, yes, you are also going to train workers. Here is how it 
will be done. Here is the money to do it. We can do these things.
  Education, research, fundamental investments, we need to pay 
attention to making it in America. I have spent days and days here on 
the floor in these Special Order hours talking about how we can do 
that. I want to give you an example.
  America today is exporting oil and natural gas. Ten years ago, we 
used to be net importers. Now we are net exporters. That strategic 
natural resource is going out to the world, largely to China, on ships. 
Whose ships? This strategic national asset needs to be coupled with 
another strategic national asset, which is the American maritime 
industry.
  Consider for a moment, if we were to require that a small percentage 
of that oil and natural gas be on American-built ships with American 
crews, American mariners, what would happen. One, 2, 3, percent, up to 
5, 6, 7, 8 percent over the next decade, we would build 50 ships. In 
the shipyards across America, we would employ American workers to build 
those ships.
  Is it possible? Absolutely, it is possible. Do you know what it 
takes? It takes a very simple law requiring that, for the necessity of 
America's national security, we be able to maintain our maritime 
industry so that, should something happen, we will be able to transport 
across the oceans of the world our military as needed, that we in our 
shipyards maintain the workforce and the viability of the shipyards so 
that they can build the necessary naval vessels.

  Is it possible? All it takes is a law.
  I recommend that we pay attention. I introduced this legislation last 
year with my good friend, Senator Wicker from the Senate side, and we 
are going to reintroduce it here in the next few days.
  The Energizing American Shipbuilding Act will soon be on the floor of 
the House and the Senate. I draw our attention to that because it 
combines a necessary national security issue with jobs.
  However, what I said a moment ago is critical. That is that, along 
the way in this process, we must train workers starting in high school, 
starting with the apprenticeship programs, making sure that the 
shipyard businesses are in the business of training workers together 
with community colleges and other apprenticeship programs. If we do 
this, even if we need to subsidize that process, we will grow this 
economy, and we will have high-paid, high-skilled workers.
  Similarly, as we rebuild the American bridges, as we rebuild the 
short-line railroads, as we rebuild the infrastructure of America, 
whether it is in high-speed internet communications systems or in 
highway transportation, river transportation, all the rest, we need to 
keep in mind the training of the workforce.
  I thank Mr. Schweikert for bringing to the attention of the floor 
tonight this critical issue. There are so many things we can do 
together. There are different ways of approaching this. But I know that 
if we are willing to engage in a debate, an honest debate about growing 
the American economy, about making sure that our task is for the 
people, not the special interests but for the fundamental American 
working men and women, we will be successful.
  Again, we can do it through education, job training, research, make 
it in America, and paying attention to our infrastructure.
  If we are short 350,000 workers to fill the 350,000 jobs that are 
open today, then it is incumbent upon this Congress to get at it.
  I want to do one final thing. There is an infrastructure project in 
California. It is an infrastructure project that has been discussed for 
the last 30 years, and it is an infrastructure project that is 
extraordinarily damaging.
  California water is extremely complex. Basically, water flows from 
northern California rivers into the great Sacramento-San Joaquin River 
Delta, the largest inland estuary on the West Coast of the Western 
Hemisphere, an extraordinary place, a place that I represent and a 
place where I have lived for the last 40-some years.
  It is an extraordinary part of America. It is now a national heritage 
area.
  It has been suggested over the last three decades that the water 
systems of California need to circumvent the natural flow of water into 
this estuary. Over this period of time, I have had the obligation to 
fight those proposals.
  First, it was the Peripheral Canal to take the water around the 
delta. Then in the last decade, it has been the Twin Tunnels, two 
massive tunnels that literally had the capacity to drain the Sacramento 
River, to drain it dry. The river runs some 12,000 to 16,000 cubic feet 
per second 6 months of the year. The tunnels were sized at 16,000 cubic 
feet per second and, therefore, capable of literally drying the delta 
and destroying the incredible ecosystem of the delta.
  We fought. We fought the battle, and I commend our new Governor, 
Governor Newsom, for stepping back and taking the time to rethink this 
proposal called the California WaterFix, to rethink its impact on the 
ecology and the environment of the delta. I thank him for taking 
WaterFix and pushing it aside.
  He said no, we are not going to pursue that. We are going to go back 
and do the environmental analysis, not on two tunnels capable of drying 
out the delta or drying out the Sacramento River, but, rather, look at 
how this water problem in California can be solved without ecological 
damage.
  We will pursue this once again, and I know that it can be done. 
Nearly 8 years ago, I proposed what I called a Water Plan for All 
California. It laid out solutions, not that I developed, but that had 
been developed by Californians in the water industry, in the 
agricultural industry, in the urban as well as the agricultural water 
systems.
  Those proposals have been out there. We simply compiled them into a 
program: conservation, storage, paying attention to the aquifers, 
paying attention to the ecology of the fish and the environment, and 
providing in the delta a solution built upon improving the transport of 
water through the natural levees and through the natural sluices and 
rivers while keeping in mind that water should not be exported when it 
would damage the fish. All of that is possible. That law is now in 
place; it is called the WIN legislation, water infrastructure.
  Now, we can move forward with a new opportunity as we revisit a 
solution that is both good for the environment, good for the delivery 
of water to all Californians, and done in a way that does not set up an 
existential danger, an existential system that could damage forever the 
largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere.
  We can do it. Just as the optimism that I heard from my Republican 
colleagues in the first order hour here, I present an optimistic 
opportunity. I am not yet joyful, but I am optimistic because I know 
these solutions are there if we work together and if we keep our eye on 
the prize for the people, for the American people, not just the 
superwealthy, not just the major American corporations, but for mom and 
pop, for Wall Street, for the men and women who are working in the 
shipyards, working on the rails, and for those millennial women who are 
entering the workforce and the millennial men who will be following 
along.
  I am optimistic, and I hope to be joyful.

[[Page H3472]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________