[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15802-15809]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           MAKE IT IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I will engage in a colloquy here, with 
the permission of the Chair, with my colleagues to discuss an extremely 
important issue for America--that is, manufacturing. If America is 
going to make

[[Page 15803]]

it, we're going to have to make it in America.
  But before I go into the subject of how we can restart and rebuild 
the American manufacturing sector and make it in America, I'd like to 
do a little review of history first.
  Years and years ago, I played football at the University of 
California. And it's football season, and my friends have often accused 
me of using football analogies, and, well, it happens to be true. So, 
okay, it's football season.
  Let's consider for a moment that it's not football that we're dealing 
with but, rather, it's the economy. And if we were to consider the 
first quarter, we would have to look at the George W. Bush and the 
Republican first quarter. What happened?
  Beginning in 2007, we began to see the extraordinary crash of the 
American economy. It just bled jobs. Eight million jobs were lost, 
peaking in December of 2008, just before the onset of the Obama 
administration. Nearly 800,000 jobs were lost that month alone, 
totaling 8 million during that period of time. So you see this 
incredible decline in the American job market, and this is just the 
private employment sector. This was replicated in the public sector 
also.
  So that was the first quarter. How did it happen? Why did it happen?
  Well, crazy tax policy for starts. Tax policies that gave 
extraordinary breaks to the very wealthy; modest breaks to the middle 
class; two wars that were not paid for, the money was borrowed; the 
Medicare drug benefit, not paid for, creating an enormous deficit and 
the regulators stepped back. The period of no regulation occurred 
during that first quarter. Wall Street went crazy. It collateralized 
debt obligations. The meltdown of the housing industry, subprime loans. 
All of those things led to this extraordinary decline.
  In January of 2009, President Obama came in and we began the second 
quarter. Tough situation going into that second quarter, but we began 
to see immediate action taken. The Wall Street stabilization programs 
went into effect, and the way in which that was administered began to 
stabilize Wall Street. We had the stimulus program, the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It went into effect. And we saw numerous 
other pieces of legislation go into effect during the Obama second 
quarter.
  I'm going to go through some of these very, very quickly.
  The stimulus program, 3 million jobs as a direct result of that since 
it went into effect in February of 2009.
  We saw also the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act 
dealing with the foreclosures, trying to keep people in their homes and 
to provide tax relief for small businesses.
  We saw the Student Aid and Financial Responsibility Act, the biggest 
effort since the GI Bill in the 1940s and 1950s, to give people an 
opportunity to get job training and to get new skills when they got 
back into the job market.
  Cash for Clunkers, stabilizing the automobile industry.
  And we also saw the American Government stepping in to save two great 
icons of the American industry and the hundreds, in fact, thousands of 
small businesses that depended upon the auto industry with the bailout 
of General Motors and Chrysler--to good effect. We were able to 
maintain those small business jobs that were directly impacted there.
  We also saw the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights. How many of us 
have reached into our pockets for our credit cards and we go, ``I just 
know those banks are going to screw me one more time.'' But no more, 
because we passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights.
  Other legislation is now pending. All of those are laws.
  And one that passed just 3 weeks ago, which was the teachers and the 
medical legislation, that went into effect fully paid for; 160,000 
teachers across the United States will stay in the classrooms providing 
that education that our students need, and paid for by ending an 
extraordinarily bad piece of policy that's been in effect for many 
years that gave a tax break to American corporations that off-shored 
American jobs.
  So what do you mean? Do you mean to tell me that American 
corporations were able to get a tax break every time they sent a job 
offshore? Yes. That's exactly what is over today as a result of action 
taken.
  On every one of these bills, every single effort made by this 
Congress to bring jobs back, to stabilize the economy, we found 
virtually no Republican support. In the stimulus, none at all. In the 
credit card, only a handful of Republicans. Republican opposition was 
uniform for every single effort made by this House, by the Democrats.
  The result of our work without Republican support has been a steady 
improvement, so that for the last 8 months we have seen private sector 
jobs actually increase--not as much as we need, not as much as we want, 
but we have seen a clear differentiation between the first quarter with 
the Bush debacle and the rebuilding of the American economy in the 
second quarter.
  Where are we today? We're at halftime. We're in the locker room here 
in Washington, D.C. We're in Congress. We're working to complete our 
plan for the second half--the resurgence and the rebuilding of the 
American economy. And in this half, we have a series of bills that we 
put forward--some already law; others that will go into effect in the 
months ahead--hopefully passed. We'd love to have the support of our 
Republican colleagues, but, as in this moment, their seats are empty. 
But when they're filled, they still vote ``no'' on every effort to 
rebuild the American economy.
  So it's halftime. The question for the American public is: Which 
team's going to go back on the field for the second half, for 2011 and 
2012? Which team's going back on the field? The team that brought us 
this great debacle, the great crash of the American economy, or the 
team that has slowly, but every month, brought progress back to the 
American economy? We're talking now about making it in America.
  Joining me today for this discussion is my colleague from the great 
State of Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen, an extraordinary individual, an 
entrepreneur in his own right, who is going to talk about some of the 
efforts that he's made and some of the issues that face his district in 
making it in America and the things that we need to do.
  Dr. Kagen from Wisconsin.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. KAGEN. Absolutely. Well, thank you very much for yielding, and 
thank you for organizing this hour, where we can begin to have a 
conversation, a very constructive conversation with the American people 
across the country about making it in America. And you know, 
manufacturing does matter. And making it in America really is 
important. And just maybe, perhaps we should change the slogan from 
``Make It In America'' and add on, ``not China.''
  Because where I live people say, ``Hey, Doc, we have got to get our 
jobs back from China. We want our money back from Wall Street and our 
jobs back from China.'' And one of my constituents, who is nearly 80 
years old, sent me this note asking really the question about whose 
side are we on? You mention it's a ball game, a football game. Could be 
peewee, could be little league, could be NFL. Look, we're all on the 
same team. We're all in the same boat, the same canoe. And amazing 
things will happen when we begin to paddle in the same direction. We 
got to work together to get through the most difficult economic time of 
our generation.
  Elaine from Peshtigo wrote me this note: ``I am soon an 80-year old 
woman and a widow. My husband and I farmed, and we certainly had hard 
times the first years. But the years now are harder for old people. Oil 
companies take a huge profit. The CEOs make a salary no man on earth is 
worth. Pill companies are taking huge profits with no consideration for 
old people. The people of my generation lived through the Depression, 
World War II, and two more wars. And now in our old age we face other 
obstacles.''
  Well, Elaine, we are working hard to rebuild our economy. We are 
working

[[Page 15804]]

hard to generate the jobs we need to work our way back into prosperity. 
One way that we've done it is to pass an essential bill on health care 
legislation. We now have a new health care law that guarantees that, 
Elaine, the doughnut hole is going to be closed over a period of time. 
We're beginning to close it by $250 straight away. We've made Medicare 
stronger and better. How did we do that? By making sure that you have 
preventative services at no additional copay and no deductible. So this 
is coming your way.
  It's a new American freedom, a new day in America, when no longer 
will any family have the fear of going broke and losing their home just 
because of an accident or just because someone gets sick.
  But we didn't just act for Elaine and every other family in America 
to guarantee them access to health care; we lowered their taxes. Now, 
the quote here says, ``Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950,'' 
from USA Today. We've lowered taxes for the people who need it the 
most, the middle class. This is not my point of view, this is the point 
of view of the former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan and 
Treasury Department economist to President George Herbert Walker Bush. 
This was a statement that he made, Mr. Bruce Bartlett. Federal taxes 
are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became 
President. The $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican 
support, reduced Federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and $222 
billion in 2010.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me, if you might yield for a moment, Dr. Kagen. 
The stimulus bill was actually a tax cut bill?
  Mr. KAGEN. It was the biggest tax cut in American history. We were in 
such a decline economically, no one felt it. We did it the economical 
way. We didn't mail people a check. We made sure they got the tax cut 
on the other end. It was more economical. So never before has such a 
tax cut been enacted. And it was the Democrats, without the 
Republicans' support, that guaranteed middle class families would pay 
less in taxes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might, you and I were talking earlier about a 
program that you have been doing in your district for the last couple 
of weeks, and you have been going to communities. And along the way 
you've reached out and said we need to make it in America. And you were 
talking about the paper industry. I suppose you have a paper industry 
in your district?
  Mr. KAGEN. I live in Paper Valley. We didn't invent the manufacturing 
of paper, but we perfected the science and technology. Kimberly-Clark, 
you have heard of it. You have heard of Kleenex. Let me put in a plug 
for them. We've got Procter & Gamble. We've got Puffs. Everything in 
the tissue world and the paper world is in Appleton and Green Bay and 
the chain of Fox Cities in-between.
  And one of those manufacturers, Appleton Coated Paper, tomorrow has a 
case before the International Trade Commission. And I brought with me a 
picture of a family. This is the Swanningson family. This is Tony, his 
wife Sherry, Corey, and Kayla. And they live in Kaukauna on highway ZZ. 
What are they doing? Well, he works at Appleton Coated Paper. And they 
have a problem because China has been competing illegally by dumping 
their paper products into our domestic United States marketplace below 
our cost of production.
  Now, I know you're thinking how does that happen? But before I get 
there, let me read you the handwritten note that Mr. Swanningson sent 
to me. ``Congressman Steve Kagen, I have been employed in the paper 
industry for 18 years. I am grateful for the ability to provide for my 
family that the industry has provided. The dumping of foreign paper 
into the United States from companies that are subsidized by their own 
governments creates a marketplace that seriously threatens my family 
and countless other families throughout the United States. The ability 
to sell paper at a price that is less than the cost to produce it 
places our companies and families at a severe disadvantage. I have been 
able to maintain employment through four layoffs due to the mill sales 
and paper machine shutdowns. But the dumping of paper in the United 
States market is a challenge that me and my fellow union brothers and 
sisters throughout the United States cannot survive.''
  You see, what China's been doing--and I have a case against China. 
They didn't just manipulate their currency, they don't have any 
environmental protection. They don't have a social safety net. They 
don't have an Occupational Safety and Health Administration. They don't 
have OSHA. They don't have an EPA. They have sacrificed their 
environment for their economic development. And they don't yet have a 
middle class.
  Now, I have nothing against another Nation seeking to lift its people 
up out of poverty and create a middle class. But they shouldn't do it 
at our expense. We shouldn't have to sacrifice our middle class solely 
to build up theirs. It's unfair.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield on that point, one of 
the issues we've talked about today and have been for a long time is 
the issue of Chinese currency manipulation by the Chinese Government. 
And we do not have to have growth in the United States at the expense 
of growth in China. If the Chinese would allow their currency to float, 
it would actually be worth more. So the Chinese consumer would be able 
to have more buying power for American goods that would be shipped over 
there, for other companies who are selling within China.
  There is just a small group of people within China, who own primarily 
state-owned businesses, who like the currency low, artificially reduced 
so that they can ship products to the United States cheaper and 
subsidized to put American workers out of business. So what we're 
saying when we say make it in America and manufacture again, can 
actually help lift up a lot of these folks in countries like China if 
we play by the rules.
  Mr. KAGEN. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Be happy to yield.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me for a moment, gentlemen, but part of our 
agenda as Democrats then is to make sure that we have fair trade, that 
we have a fair balance between our Nation, our manufacturers, and those 
in other countries who may be--not may be, but are--subsidizing their 
exports, such as China and the currency thing.
  Dr. Kagen? And this is a colloquy, so we will go back and forth here. 
So please.
  Mr. KAGEN. I am getting a little excited because China has been 
caught cheating. They don't just manipulate their currency. They 
provide free energy, they provide no taxation, they provide cheap labor 
at 82 cents an hour. They have been buying raw materials for nothing, 
giving it to a company, and then they load it up on a boat and float it 
outside of Oakland and dump it into our Nation, into our domestic 
market below our cost of production.

                              {time}  1750

  Let me just put it very succinctly. They have targeted everything we 
make for extinction. It's not just paper. It's high-tech technology; 
it's automobiles; it's steel; it's textiles.
  We have to restore our manufacturing base, yes, in part, by 
compelling other nations to stop cheating, by not manipulating their 
currency, by playing fair. One way to play fair is to instead of 
stealing our jobs, why don't you take our values. Take our values about 
clean air and clean water, because they are polluting the air that we 
are breathing.
  It's not that far away. If a tall man and an allergist--and I say 
this--if a tall man in China sneezes, you are going to get it in the 
back of your head. It's going to come over here.
  We have studies that scientifically show that the great dust storm 
they had in China dropped that dust over on our west coast. We are all 
here in the same boat. So, yes, we have to push back, not just for fair 
trade, but for balanced trade, in order for our companies to compete.
  I will just relate one story, one educational experience in, I 
believe it was in February of 2007, just after I was

[[Page 15805]]

sent here. I had the opportunity with my class of 2006 to sit down with 
eight CEOs of major manufacturing companies, the high-tech companies, 
HP, IBM, Dell and the like.
  I asked them, what's your biggest component of your overhead, and 
each one of them said people, people, people, people. I said, well, 
that would explain why you are taking our jobs over to India and China 
because you can hire them for less.
  And right across from me was Michael Dell and he said, Congressman 
Kagen, I am competing with these guys. I have to chase the lowest cost 
of production around the world or I am out of business, and I have to, 
after all, represent my people, which are my stockholders.
  So we have to make things in America. Manufacturing does matter, but 
we need a level playing field.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's continue on. I notice that another colleague has 
joined us from the great State of New York, but let me turn back to our 
colleague that was raising the point about the Chinese currency.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yes. Well, I would say that if it's balanced, and I 
think all of the workers and the business people in America would say 
this, if China is not manipulating their currency, if there was some 
balance with human rights and worker rights and the environment and 
those kinds of things, we would compete with anybody. But what we have 
now under the current trading system, with China blatantly manipulating 
our currency, we had almost everybody at this hearing today 
acknowledging that China is cheating on their currency, Democrats and 
Republicans. But we had a lot of Republicans on the other side saying, 
we just don't think this is the approach.
  And it gets back to these multinational corporations that have a 
stranglehold on a lot of the politics going on here in the United 
States capital. But we need to bring this bill to the floor of the 
House of Representatives, and we need to pass it, and we need to take 
on the Chinese.
  We are not going to have a country left in a decade or so if we are 
not making things. You get the spinoff. You get the technology. You get 
the patents. You get five, six, seven, eight spinoff jobs for every one 
job. You are actually making something and moving it to you and you 
improve it and add value and you pass it along and add value. And then 
it's assembled; then it's trucked. There is the spinoff that we get 
with manufacturing. That's how we are going to resuscitate the middle 
class.
  My fear is that as we have lost manufacturing, and if you chart it--
you can see it decline from 39 percent in post-World War II down to 
under 10 percent--you could see the decline. My fear is that as we move 
into the development of solar panels, as we move into the development 
of windmills, that's exactly it.
  As we develop the green technology and all of the component parts, 
you will begin to see China taking the lead on green manufacturing, and 
we can't cede that ground because that is the future. As much as our 
friends on the other side of the aisle want to bury their head in the 
sand and hope this goes away, that's not the world we live in.
  So we need to take a firm approach with China, respect them, but make 
sure they play by the rules. We have got to play by the rules. Everyone 
else has got to play by the rules.
  I will use one example real briefly. We had a steel company, Oil 
Country Tubular Products for oil and gas. The steelworkers, the trade 
groups, the local businesses, all went around, petitioned the 
International Trade Commission, got approval. The President was kind 
enough to put on a tariff for these Oil Country Tubular goods coming 
in. They end up investing $650 million in a factory in Youngstown, 
Ohio, 400 construction jobs, 350 permanent jobs, the spinoff, the whole 
9 yards because our government enforced the rules and leveled the 
playing field. That's what we are saying about currency, tires, paper, 
textiles, right down the line.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me take a moment here and bring it back to 
something you were talking about. You mentioned the wind turbines and 
the solar systems. We developed the technology here in the United 
States, and, in fact, the stimulus bill that provided the largest 
increase ever in research is going to once again put the United States 
in a position where we can dominate these green industries.
  That research is there. Incidentally, not one Republican voted for 
that enormous research program and tax cut and jobs program and 
infrastructure program. Not one Republican voted for the program that 
created 3 million jobs.
  But there is something going on here that we need to pay attention 
to, and this is a piece of legislation that I have introduced. We are 
spending billions of dollars to promote the wind industry, the solar 
industry. These are tax credits that we give to companies for a 
production tax credit or for someone that's putting a solar cell on 
their house.
  We need to make sure that that tax money is spent on American-made 
wind turbines and American-made solar panels, biofuels, and other kinds 
of green technologies. If it's our tax money, then Buy America. Buy 
American.
  A little later here, I suspect, I want one of our colleagues, Marcy 
Kaptur, to come and talk to us about a bill that passed out of this 
House just hours ago that would require that you and I, not just talk 
the talk, but that we walk the walk and that in the equipment that we 
purchase for our offices, it be made in America, once again, American 
tax money used to buy American-made products.
  It's a piece of legislation I have introduced. I like it. I like it 
because it's going to create in my industry wind turbines that are 
actually going to not only be on the hills but actually made in 
America.
  Enough for me for a few minutes. I notice my colleague from New York, 
Mr. Paul Tonko, has joined us. You have been at this a long time. You 
were in one of the original manufacturing sectors of America. Please 
tell us.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for bringing us 
together. You are right, I do represent the area that houses the Erie 
Canal bed that was the main route to the westward movement, and it's a 
necklace of communities called mill towns that were the centers of 
invention and innovation. That pioneer spirit still exists, I am 
convinced, in America.
  During our recent work-period break, where we all went back to our 
districts and had a 6-week stretch to connect to our constituents, I 
did Tuesday tours. The Tuesday tours were about manufacturing, making 
it in America, and where we need to invest and where the success 
stories might rest.
  It's amazing to see the stories that were impacted by the Recovery 
Act, work done by water efficiency, energy efficiency, the MEP program, 
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which, by the way, the 
previous administration wanted to zero out.
  I went to a group called X-Ray Opticals. Because of MEP programming 
and SBIR, Small Business Innovation Research, monies, this group is 
employing people they never dropped during the recession. They were a 
steady pulse, and they are exporting.
  Just when we want to say we are not exporting and, oh, the die is 
cast and, oh, woe is us, we lost our manufacturing sector, we lost a 
third of our manufacturing jobs over the last decade thanks to the 
weakened policy on manufacturing. But we still have enough jobs that 
places us on the top of that manufacturing list globally, but we can't 
afford that present trend which would see us losing more manufacturing 
jobs.
  We have turned that around. Those one-third of manufacturing jobs 
lost in the last decade equates to 4.6 million jobs lost.
  But now, with the Recovery Act, with a new focus on manufacturing, I 
think there is a stronger sense that we can move forward and proclaim 
accurately that we want to make it in America.
  Representative Garamendi, let me just tell you that at X-Ray Opticals 
they are exporting to Asia and to Europe. They are dealing with testing 
for

[[Page 15806]]

toxins. They manufacture equipment that is the testing product for 
toxins in toys, in fuel and a number of items where they can save 
manufacturers in another realm a lot of money in the up-front part of 
their process.

                              {time}  1800

  And again, it's a high-tech operation where they had the investment 
and the partnership with the Federal Government so that we can do it 
smarter, not necessarily cheaper. We can do it smarter, and then we are 
competitive at the global marketplace.
  Another venture was a state-of-the-art operation within the baby food 
industry. In my district, we have a new facility that qualifies for a 
silver status LEED building, a green building that has water efficiency 
and energy efficiency as a major aspect of the work they are doing, 
saving them cost of production and allowing them to stretch again that 
opportunity to translate it into jobs. Now, that was a government 
partnership to provide for water and energy efficiency, another sort of 
assistance we can provide manufacturing.
  And then a third visit, if I might just share this one with you, was 
an outcome of the ARPA-E grant money that came with Recovery Act money. 
Now, get a load of this. Before I came to Congress, there was an 
opportunity for us to really do the ARPA-E program beyond just 
rhetoric, but the Bush Presidency just proclaimed we are going to have 
an ARPA-E program with never ever funding it. And finally, we had $800 
million appear from the Recovery Act that went to the actual 
implementation of ARPA-E.
  DARPA, the Defense-related advanced research project opportunities, 
created situations like Internet for the Defense system and stealth 
bombers. We took that success that goes back to the NASA days and now 
overlaid that into the energy thinking, into the energy realm.
  And so ARPA-E, with its research project initiatives, is enabling 
this industry, SuperPower in Schenectady, another tour location, to 
advance superconductive cable and also storage for intermittent power.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Before you go to the next one, could you share with us 
where the ARPA-E money came into the system?
  Mr. TONKO. Sure. It came right from the Recovery Act.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Most people don't know what the Recovery Act is. They 
think of the stimulus program. They are one and the same, the stimulus 
program and the Recovery Act.
  Mr. TONKO. It is exactly the same thing. The majority in this House 
supported the Recovery Act.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. That is, the Democrats supported and passed the 
stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  Mr. TONKO. Our friends on the other side of the aisle said ``no'' to 
progress.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. ``No.'' ``No.'' ``No.''
  So for research-specific programs, for energy research and small 
businesses, they got grants and loans to develop. The Democrats know 
that we have to improve the private sector to make jobs.
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely.
  Well, let me tell you, Representative Garamendi, what this means is 
that with that recovery money, with the stimulus money that the 
Democrats support and the Republicans said ``no'' to, we were able to, 
for once now, finally, appropriate moneys for the science, the 
technology, and the basic research.
  What they will do at SuperPower is develop that final model that will 
then be deployed into a manufacturing concept that will allow us to 
create the storage potential for exactly what you were talking about, 
solar energy and wind energy, which is intermittent in nature. If we 
get the storage issue, the battery issue resolved, it becomes even more 
powerful.
  So it's not just about taking a garage idea and creating a 
manufactured product out of it, but it's also creating jobs, which then 
enables us to create better energy solutions.
  So all of this, in a big picture format, is a whiz-kid idea where 
everybody from tradesmen to Ph.D.'s all get their hands in the action, 
where we develop a product line which requires manufacturing jobs, but 
then that product will enable us to respond more favorably and fully to 
the energy solutions that we can do here domestically and be more 
energy self-efficient and energy independent. It all comes together in 
a master plan that uses the American workers' intellect from skilled 
labor on over to the Ph.D. And it all happens with our saying ``yes'' 
to a partnership like that of the stimulus package.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, we know that the central New York area along the 
Erie Canal was one of the birthplaces of the American Industrial 
Revolution. I think there was something in the Midwest, too. My 
colleagues here from the Midwest may have something to add to it. Ohio, 
I believe? Do you still make things in Ohio?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yes, we do. And we are right in line to continue 
down the road of innovation, whether it was aerospace with the Wright 
brothers, the steel industry in Youngstown in the eastern part of my 
district, or the rubber industry in Akron, which is the western part of 
my district that I share with Representative Sutton. And we had, in 
Youngstown at one point, the highest per capita income in the country 
in the late fifties, early sixties. Steelworkers were working hard, 
long hours, making good money, good wages, raising their families, 
having a good middle class. The big bands would come through town. They 
would go to Idora Park. The story of America that we all remember.
  And today, what we are saying is we understand that it's not going to 
be 1950, and Frank Sinatra is not going to come back and start singing 
songs again, as much as that would be terrific. We have got to create 
our own era of prosperity, and that means that in this country we have 
got to get tough with globalization and enforcing trade laws. And that 
means as a country we've got to suck it up, and we've got to say to the 
multinational corporations, who, quite frankly, don't have the national 
interest at heart--they've got their bottom line at heart, which is 
what they do. But as a country, we've got the national interest and 
need to protect the national interest. So tough with China. Level the 
playing field. Drive investment back into the United States so that we 
can make that bus, those solar panels, those windmills and the 
batteries, right down the line.
  And we are not foolish enough. This isn't Pollyanna. We're not going 
to make everything. We know there is going to be stuff that's 
manufactured in China for the Chinese markets. Great. And I hope 
American companies go over there and do that. But what we are saying is 
we can't be weak-kneed with the Chinese.
  I like what I saw today at the hearing we had. I like what I'm 
hearing within our caucus to possibly bring a bill to the floor that 
would get tough with China and get us making things in America again.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You said something a moment ago when you were talking 
about the multinational corporations and whether we're willing to stand 
up to the multinational corporations and bring jobs back to America. 
Two and a half weeks ago, we came back from our session working out in 
our districts to pick up a piece of legislation called the Education 
Jobs and Medical Assistance Act. As a result of that, 160,000 teachers 
are employed across the Nation, and police and firemen, public safety 
officials and medical services are being provided in the communities.
  A major piece of that legislation dealt precisely with the issue you 
discussed a moment ago about multinationals. Under the previous law, 
multinational companies that took jobs from America and shipped them to 
China or somewhere else in the world actually got a tax break. We 
closed that loophole. We closed that tax loophole, bringing $10 billion 
back to the Treasury and discouraging American corporations, ending 
their incentive.
  Mr. Tonko, if you would like to jump into this one.
  Mr. TONKO. I think not only is that true, but also I believe during 
the Bush Presidency there was a strong focus on

[[Page 15807]]

a portion of our economy, on our jobs, and somewhat a weak commitment 
to other sectors. As we all know, when you break down the jobs or the 
economy issue, it's agriculture, it's manufacturing, and it's service 
sector. I think the emphasis on agriculture and manufacturing was 
extremely weak.
  We see the problems in the agricultural community. I see them in my 
dairy sector in my district. It's painful to see the lack of attention 
that has been paid to a fair price for dairy farmers.
  In manufacturing, it was ignored heavily. They wanted to, as I said, 
zero out MEP, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which produced a 
lot of success for X-Ray Opticals, where now they are exporting. But 
they put all their emphasis in the service sector, and where they did, 
they turned their back to regulation, to overview, to kind of 
stewardship of a sector of the economy that, when left to control 
itself, brought down, because of greed, the American economy, and it 
wreaked damage upon us.
  So what I would say is that we need to put the focus back into 
manufacturing. The programs we have done here, after the damage that 
was allowed to occur, are now going to bring back a strong response to 
manufacturing. And I can't say well enough how strong the Democratic 
agenda has been here to grow the Make it in America campaign.
  Make it in America is something that people have been asking for. And 
they can't understand, why is it our manufacturing can't work here? 
Well, we see where the intellect is being invested in, where we are 
growing a strong partnership with small business, the springboard to 
our economy. They are providing the great percentage of new jobs in our 
society.
  So, finally, the Democrats bring a working agenda that will be a 
profitable situation for all of us with job creation and the kind of 
stability and local infusion that is essential after it was ignored for 
far too long.

                              {time}  1810

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's turn to our colleague from the manufacturing 
center of America.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You want to talk about an example, the illustration 
of what Democrats stand for when it comes to manufacturing, come to my 
district. Last week we unveiled the rollout of a third shift at the 
General Motors plant that is making the Cruise car, a hot car being 
sold by General Motors all over the world. Think about what would have 
happened with manufacturing in the United States if this President and 
this House and this Senate said, Let the auto industry go. I remember 
watching TV programs and hearing Senators and Republicans from the 
other side of the aisle saying let the free market work. Let it crash.
  We would have lost an essential component to manufacturing in the 
United States. We would have lost General Motors for sure, sold off in 
pieces, and who knows who would have come in and ate up that market 
share from somewhere else in the world. But we said, no. We need to 
have manufacturing. We need to be a leader in the auto industry. This 
is something we believe in, and we are now seeing manufacturing 
increase month after month after month because of the stimulus package 
and because of what the President and this Democratic Congress did for 
the auto industry.
  Mr. KAGEN. Would the gentleman agree that if you don't make anything, 
you won't have anything?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That makes sense to me.
  Mr. KAGEN. You have to make things to have things. And it is 
manufacturing that brings us our higher wage jobs. But when we brought 
the bill you referred to to the House floor, only 12 Republicans voted 
to close the very corporate tax loopholes that ship our jobs overseas. 
We cannot continue to reward corporations for stealing our jobs and 
taking them overseas. Whose side are we on? You have to be on the side 
of the middle class.
  When it came time to consider, as we are now in discussions, to 
making permanent tax cuts for the middle class, it is the Democratic 
Party that stands up for the middle class to make it possible for them 
to have a permanent tax cut. The other side of the aisle is promoting 
what? More and more debt to reward the top 1 or 2 percent income 
earners in the United States. That is just not right. It is not right 
for our cities in Wisconsin, and it is not right for America.
  The other aspect: The other side of the aisle has an idea about 
Social Security, to phase it out. Phase out Social Security?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Wait, you mean to tell me that the Republican Party 
actually has, as one of their policy planks, to phase out Social 
Security?
  Mr. KAGEN. In the State of Wisconsin, it is in their party platform 
to transform and phase out Social Security. But Social Security is a 
sacred contract between one generation and the next. It is the most 
successful social program ever invented by human beings. It guarantees 
people will be in their house, not the poorhouse, when they become old. 
It is not a retirement plan, but it is something if you put your money 
in, you did the work, you have got to be able to get your money out. So 
when it comes to Social Security, we are here to protect it and enhance 
it. Our opposition seeks to destroy it. There should be no question 
about whose side we are on.
  But getting back to making it in America, making it in America is not 
only about manufacturing, it is about guaranteeing that your children 
have, that the Swanningson family's children, Corey and Kayla, have a 
great education. It is about guaranteeing that you have access to 
affordable health care when and where you need it. It is about 
guaranteeing that our manufacturing base that creates the higher-wage 
jobs can compete on a level playing field. This is something that just 
makes sense. But around here, if it makes sense, it is going to be hard 
to do.
  So I would join with my colleagues in encouraging your bill to move 
forward, to make certain that this administration and any 
administration moving forward holds China accountable to stop 
manipulating its currency.
  Now, the big picture that I get to see at 30,000 feet that I didn't 
see before coming here--and you know I am a doctor, right? I always 
tell my patients, you know, it is going to take you just about as long 
to get better as it took you to get sick. It took us a while to slide 
into this deep recession, and it is going to take a while to work our 
way back into prosperity. But making it--we are going to make it in 
America, not just with manufacturing once again, but by making sure 
that we hold China and other Asian nations accountable.
  So what I see happening is the idea that free market capitalism has 
bumped into a brick wall, the Chinese wall. It is the Asian model of 
capitalism where the government owns the corporation, controls the 
currency, offers slave-like wages for labor, environmental conditions 
at work that we would not tolerate, not even for our animals. So what 
we have to ship overseas is not our jobs, but our American values. That 
is who we are. The voters will have a chance in several weeks to make 
decisions about whose side we are on. When it comes to tax cuts for the 
middle class and to protecting Social Security and making things in 
America, when it comes to closing those tax loopholes, the Democrats 
are on their side.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We have talked about various ways we can make it in 
America, certainly the fair trade dealing with China's currency and the 
whole idea of competition. We have talked about the way in which we 
have to make sure that our tax laws support programs of hiring in the 
United States rather than off-shoring. In all of these things I would 
hope our Republican colleagues would come along with us to make it in 
America. But on maybe 20 different bills that we have moved out of this 
House, there has been virtually no Republican support.
  There are other opportunities, and we offer these opportunities to 
our Republican colleagues to come along with us on some other programs. 
A piece of legislation that I am working on deals with these buses that 
were once made

[[Page 15808]]

in the Midwest, in Ohio, and are still made in California. Right now we 
spend about $6 billion of our gasoline tax money to buy buses, light 
rail trains, intercity rail systems for Amtrak and the like. In the 
law, there are four waivers that allow the Department of Transportation 
to ignore the Buy American rules, and so what has happened over the 
last 20 years or so is that those waivers are routinely used and 
transit districts simply buy buses that are made overseas. Our tax 
money flows out of the country, our jobs disappear, and our industry, 
the transportation industry, is almost gone.
  My legislation tells the Department of Transportation, no, no, those 
waivers are finished. Three of the four waivers are gone. If there is 
an extraordinary cost difference, okay. But we want that money spent on 
American jobs so that when in the San Francisco Bay area, the Bay Area 
Rapid Transit system, BART, goes out, as they will, to buy $300 million 
of train sets for the BART system, where will those trains be made? 
Will they be made in China? Given the monetary advantage that China 
has, quite possibly they could win the bid. Given the issues of worker 
safety and environmental issues that China ignores, they may win the 
bid. But my legislation says no, we are going to make these trains in 
America, $300 million there, $6 billion to $7 billion a year across the 
Nation for transit districts everywhere, we can make it in America if 
we bring our tax money back. So whether it is wind turbines or solar or 
buses and trains, it is our tax money. Let's spend it in America, 
rebuild the American manufacturing system, and make it in America.
  Would that be a good thing for Ohio?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are all for it, and I tell you what, if you 
think about the contrast of the Bush doctrine, which Republicans 
currently want to go back to, and I am amazed around election time when 
they are pretty blatant about saying, yup, that is exactly what we want 
to do. We want to go back to the Bush doctrine on taxes and on energy 
and all of this, and the economy and not regulating Wall Street, they 
want to go back to the Bush doctrine of economic policy.
  Now I understand that we are having this tax debate now because the 
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and everyone are going to expire. 
We need to remember that these were the tax cuts that were going to 
unleash the economy in the United States. We were going to have all of 
this growth because of the Bush tax cuts. Cut taxes for the wealthy, 
explosion among developers, explosion among the economy, and we're 
going to have low unemployment and everything else. And where did it 
end? The absolute collapse of the United States economy.

                              {time}  1820

  What we're saying is not only tax cuts for the wealthiest in the 
country but tax cuts to offshore work, incentives for businesses to 
offshore work out of the country. So it's tax cuts for the wealthiest, 
offshoring work, having a prescription drug plan that you don't even 
pay for, borrowing money from the Chinese to run two wars, okay? So 
this is all the Bush Doctrine which would privatize Social Security and 
Medicare. This is all the Bush Doctrine.
  What we're saying is don't privatize Social Security and Medicare. 
Let's invest back into these programs. Let's give tax cuts to the 
middle class. Let's give tax cuts to businesses which will locate and 
create jobs in the United States. Let's get a manufacturing policy in 
the United States so that we can have an auto industry, a steel 
industry, a paper industry, a textile industry, and most importantly, 
engineering, design and manufacturing economies of the future in 
green--a clear contrast between the Bush policies that our Republican 
friends clearly still trumpet and want to go back to. You have on that 
chart there what we have done to reverse that trend and to continue to 
invest back into America so we can make things again.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You talked about the investment.
  A week ago, President Obama spoke to this issue of making it in 
America and of rebuilding the American industries. He spoke about the 
need to give significant tax breaks to businesses that want to invest 
capital to expand their businesses, to expand their manufacturing 
bases. Here is a very, very powerful notion.
  I was meeting with three of my friends who are in the business 
community. They are manufacturers--one in the food industry, another in 
the high-tech industry. I was talking to them about this notion of 
would you increase your business, would you increase your capital 
investment on your production lines if you could write off in 1 year 
the cost of that capital. They said, Absolutely. You put that into law, 
and I'm investing tomorrow. I'm going to put people to work building my 
manufacturing base.
  So the President has now spoken to this. It's one of the proposals 
that he has put forward. Today, I introduced a piece of legislation 
that would do exactly that. Any business that wants to increase its 
capital investment in that business--broadband, production lines, 
machine tools, whatever it is--they could write it off in year one. We 
can restart the American manufacturing system if we are committed to 
making it in America, which is a whole series of legislation: ending 
tax breaks for offshoring, ending tax breaks for businesses that are 
routinely killing the American economy by sending jobs offshore, using 
our tax money to build a green economy here in America rather than 
buying it from manufacturers overseas, making sure our buses, our 
trains, our planes are made in America.
  Dr. Kagen, you've been in the high-tech industry, in the medical 
industry. You understand these issues.
  Mr. KAGEN. Absolutely.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. It affects your kinds of businesses. Share with us 
your perspective as we begin to wrap this up in the next 6 minutes.
  Mr. KAGEN. Well, I'll make a brief comment.
  The investment tax credit is so critical for emerging pharmaceutical 
companies--for biotechnology in particular. So when you reward people 
for doing good work instead of rewarding corporations and people for 
their wealth, you really begin to get that engine of America going, 
that small-business engine that really creates all the jobs that we 
need. I would summarize what Mr. Ryan had to say as this:
  The Bush Doctrine, the Reagan Doctrine of trickle-down economics has 
failed miserably. It has rewarded people for their wealth instead of 
their work.
  What we must begin to do again is to encourage people, in small 
business in particular and small banks, to take that risk, to take that 
chance and to reward you for your risk-taking and for your hard work. 
That will start the economic engine, and it will rebuild our economy as 
we go through this transformation over the next decade of becoming 
energy independent. We may not be totally independent as a Nation as 
far as growing our own energy, as far as developing our own energy, but 
we certainly have the resources here at home. Making it in America 
means not just manufacturing, making things here; it also means 
investing our hard-earned tax dollars in our own Nation's 
infrastructure.
  What I object to so greatly is that we take our resources, like our 
children, and send them off to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we send $2 
billion a week into Afghanistan, rebuilding buildings we've never 
destroyed and building schools that they may need, but we need schools 
as well and water treatment plants. Look, if we're going to build an 
infrastructure, it should be here in these United States. That is where 
my people live. I don't represent people overseas.
  Finally, with manufacturing, invest in infrastructure. We also need 
to balance our trade deals, about which you and I have had discussions 
with the Asian nations, to make sure that our trade is balanced. That 
way, we can generate the higher waged jobs that we need here at home--
jobs that will keep people in their homes, that will feed our tax base, 
that will rebuild our schools, and rebuild our middle class.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Dr. Kagen, thank you so very much for joining us.

[[Page 15809]]

  As I started this discussion, I used an analogy of a football game. 
We're talking about the most important game of all. It's not even a 
game. The most important thing of all is the American economy and how 
to keep it going and growing.
  To go back over it, during the Bush years, these are all of the 
reasons we've stated: Two wars for which money was borrowed, creating 
an enormous deficit; the deregulation of Wall Street, anything goes; 
the collapse of Wall Street; the issues of tax policy where the wealthy 
were rewarded for their wealth, not for their work, which led to the 
largest decline in the American economy since the Great Depression of 
the 1930s.
  It was plain to see that when President Obama came in. That was the 
first quarter. In the second quarter, we began to see policies that 
were put forth by the Democratic Party and the Democratic 
administration, policies that began to restore the American economy--a 
steady upward climb. It's not where we need to be, but we are on the 
road, and we did all of that with almost no Republican help at all. If 
you go back through all of those votes, the Republican Party was 
standing over there, saying no, no to the programs that actually 
brought us back, and we continue on today. We are in the locker room, 
ready for the second half, which begins in January 2011. The question 
is:
  Which team are you going to put back on the field? Where do you 
stand?
  Well, we know pretty clearly where the Republican Party stands. It 
stands with the old failed policies of the George W. Bush 
administration. It stands for ending Social Security and for ending 
Medicare. It stands for anything goes and no regulation; let it rip and 
it's ripped us off. It stands for tax breaks for the wealthy and the 
heck with the middle class. That's where the Republican Party stands.
  The Democratic Party wants to make it in America, to rebuild the 
American manufacturing base and the American manufacturing industry.
  If you would, Dr. Kagen, put the picture back up of the family, of 
the family in your district in the paper industry. This family is 
losing its job because of unfair competition. If we were to use the 
Capital Investment Program together with the program that you talked 
about of restoring fairness and trade, perhaps that company, that 
family and families in my district would be able to have well-paid, 
middle class American jobs.
  Dr. Kagen, would you like to close us off here and bring us back to 
real America.
  Mr. KAGEN. Thank you very much for yielding.
  I'll just summarize that the Swanningson family wants nothing more 
than any other family in the United States. They want an opportunity to 
go to work where it's safe, where they can earn a living wage, where 
they can begin to pay off their own debts and make it on their own, to 
have their own home, to have a living wage sufficient enough to educate 
themselves and the next generation--their children. That is, after all, 
what every family wants.
  This is the American Dream that is being stolen away by the illegal 
dumping of paper into our area, and when China has targeted everything 
else we make for extinction, it's just time that we stand up and fight 
for our own jobs here at home. We're going to make it in America when 
we all begin to paddle in the same direction, when we're all in the 
same boat. So let's get on board. Let's take that train ride together.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Dr. Kagen, thank you so very much and my colleagues 
for joining us, and thank you to my colleagues in the Democratic Party, 
who are committed to manufacturing matters and to making it in America. 
We have put forth many, many policies and programs. We ask our 
Republican colleagues to join us in making it in America.
  I yield back my time, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________