[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1399-1403]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           MAKE IT IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss what's on every 
American's mind, and that is a job. My own family, they're thinking 
constantly about will they be able to keep their job, what's going to 
happen in the school system, are there going to be layoffs?
  I know that in the communities I represent that have very high 
unemployment, on the minds of every family is, will there be a job for 
me?
  Over the last more than 2\1/2\ years now, the Democratic majority, 
and now the Democratic minority, has focused on this issue. Like a 
laser, our focus was on creating jobs in America. Immediately upon 
taking office in 2009, President Obama and the Democratic majority here 
in this House put forward the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 
That law created, by most every economist's estimate, more than 2 
million jobs, or maintained more than 2 million jobs in America. It was 
an enormous boost to the American economy. That, together with other 
programs that were developed during that period of 2009, stabilized the 
American economy. It certainly didn't get us out of the recession, but 
it prevented the great depression that could have occurred.
  We're now, this year, in 2011, once again focusing, like a laser, on 
creating jobs in America. It's the President's intent. He spoke to this 
issue here when he spoke to us at the State of the Union. He was across 
the street from the White House just 2 days ago talking to the Chamber 
of Commerce about this issue of creating jobs, jobs in America. And 
this is where we're coming from. If America's going to make it, we're 
going to have to make it in America. Great examples of this are once 
again being seen. I see that my colleague from Detroit is here, and if 
he would care to join us in a few moments, we'll be talking about a 
very unique advertisement that occurred at the Super Bowl, one in which 
Imported from Detroit is now the message across America. It's not that 
Chrysler disappeared; it's actually that Chrysler continues to exist, 
along with General Motors, because the Obama administration and the 
Democrats here in the Congress reached out and gave a boost up for 
those two great American corporations. And today they continue, they 
continue to produce jobs in America because they are making cars in 
America. So our theme is Make It in America. There's a whole series of 
policies that are encompassed in this schematic of Make It in America, 
so that America can make it.
  Trade policies. We're all for trade. We think it's an extremely 
important element in growing jobs and growing the economy. But it has 
to be fair trade. And when we look to countries such as China, we 
question whether indeed it is fair trade.
  The Democrats in this House last year--and we will try once again 
this year to pass a currency reform piece of legislation that would 
force the Department of Commerce to take into account the unfair 
currency manipulation that China is engaged in. Economists estimate 
that it's perhaps 40 percent undervalued. Who can compete against that? 
Not very many. And therefore, we see goods flowing into America and 
America cash flowing into China.
  Tax policy, extremely important. Last year, without the help of any 
of our Republican colleagues, we passed legislation that became law 
that ended a $12 billion a year tax break for American corporations 
that are shipping jobs offshore. What was that all about? You mean to 
tell me that American corporations actually got a reduction in their 
taxes when they shipped jobs offshore? Yes, they did. But not anymore, 
because of the Democratic determination to keep jobs in America.
  Energy policy, labor policy, education policy, intellectual property, 
infrastructure. All of these elements, all seven of these elements, are 
key ingredients in creating jobs in America.
  You can hear some people say, well, it's all about the private 
sector; just let the private sector go and there will be plenty of 
jobs. It doesn't happen, never happened. You can go back into the 
history of this Nation, and it's always been solid, good public policy 
connected to the private sector that created the great surges in the 
American economy.
  Take, for example, the railroads in America in the 19th century. In 
the mid-1800s, during the great Civil War, a bill was passed here in 
Congress signed by President Abraham Lincoln that did two things. That 
piece of legislation created the intercontinental rail system by giving 
government land to the rail companies so that they would be encouraged 
to build those intercontinental railroads.
  The second bill that was passed created the research, and that's the 
intellectual side of this, and that's the land grant institutions. We 
must continue that long history of America, private sector working in 
concert with public policy to create jobs in America. And that's what 
we want to do with our Make It in America program that creates strong 
middle class jobs.
  I'd like now to turn to my colleague from the great state of Ohio, 
Marcy Kaptur. If you would join us and tell us what's happening in the 
great industrial belt of America that we intend to rebuild.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Congressman Garamendi, I want to thank you for your 
leadership. You are such an addition to this Congress. The people of 
California certainly made the right decision in sending you here.
  And you know, this happens to be the week of the Super Bowl. And as 
we think about America as a super Nation, with made in America at the 
heart of our economic prowess, the big winner in the Super Bowl this 
year was actually the commercial by Chrysler Corporation for its 
innovative 2-minute spot featuring the Chrysler 200, to the soundtrack 
of Detroiter and rap artist Eminem. The commercial is really a 
celebration of the greatness of Detroit and the resilience of this 
incredible, incredible city.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. GARAMENDI. If you would be so kind as to yield. I notice that 
Representative Clarke just arrived, new to Congress, not new to 
Detroit. And what's going on in Detroit? Should I import my car from 
Tokyo or from Detroit?
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Absolutely not from Tokyo, definitely from 
Detroit. I want to thank you so much, Representative Garamendi, for 
making it a priority that we make it in America.
  Yesterday I did talk about the great TV ad that was aired during the 
Super Bowl where the rapper Eminem highlighted the grittiness and 
ingenuity of Detroiters that have given us the ability to make some of 
the finest vehicles in the world. And I also mentioned how that spirit 
of Detroit is really rooted in American values, those values that 
cherish our God-given rights, to life, to liberty, to the pursuit of 
happiness.

[[Page 1400]]

  I'm not just bringing these up as a constitutional exercise or as a 
discussion of American history. If you don't mind, I would like to 
share with you; this is really about my dad. My dad would be 100 years 
old if he were living today.
  Back during the 1930s, during the Great Depression, he risked 
everything to emigrate to the U.S. from India. He risked everything to 
come over here, and he was attracted to Detroit so he could get a 
chance to build cars in the Ford foundry.
  The heart that he brought to his job was the same heart that 
transformed the city of Detroit into the arsenal of democracy that 
helped save this country and save this world from fascism. And as I 
mentioned, it's that same heart that I believe will restore financial 
prosperity to our country and financial security to American families 
if we make it in America, because we've got the insight, we've got the 
hard work, we have the research and the capability to build those cars 
that are going to be powered by electricity, to help build those homes 
and those buildings that will be heated by the sun, and to manufacture 
the best products in the world that will provide economic stability to 
our country but also provide prosperity to the world.
  There are many people here watching us whose family came here to this 
country because they had a dream. There are others, like my mother's 
people, who came to this country against their will. But either way, 
when you come to America, you have the right to have an opportunity to 
pursue happiness, whether it's happiness of having the peace of mind of 
being comfortable here or enjoying the excitement of pursuing your own 
personal ambition.
  The pursuit of happiness in this country means that all of us have 
the opportunity to live our life as full as we choose it. And, you see, 
that opportunity to really use our intellect, our mind, our body and 
our spirit, that's what makes American manufacturing the most 
extraordinary achievement of modern civilization, because American 
manufacturing is not just about cheapening costs or taking someone's 
technology. It's about harnessing the genius that's within all of us. 
It's about unleashing the ingenuity that's inherent in humankind.
  So that's why I urge this Congress, when we consider these policies 
right here on the board, whether it's who to trade with, who to train, 
how to tax, that we do all of this to focus on making it in America. 
Because when we do that, we can truly have enduring prosperity for all 
Americans and American families, and right now, our families are 
feeling so insecure. The answer is in our roots. It's in American 
manufacturing.
  When we make it in Detroit, we make it in America.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Representative Clarke. Your 
passion for this issue was well displayed in that Detroit Chrysler 
advertisement.
  And I would just point out, before I turn back to Ms. Kaptur, that 
Chrysler and General Motors were saved as an American manufacturing 
icon by policies of President Barack Obama. It was his policies, 
supported by the Democrats in the House and the Senate, that allowed 
for the support that those two corporations needed to reinvent 
themselves so that there could be jobs in America.
  Now, Ms. Kaptur, you come from an area where manufacturing has been, 
really, the essence of the economy for a long time, and you have been 
supporting legislation and introducing legislation. Could you share 
with us those things that you are working on now and the legislation 
that you are pushing through this House?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Yes.
  First of all, let me just say, Congressman Garamendi, it is such a 
joy to have Congressman Clarke here from the wonderful city of Detroit. 
I really loved that commercial because I think it captured the struggle 
of our country through the lens of Detroit and, I might say, Toledo, 
just a few minutes south of Detroit. It talked about how the city had 
been to hell and back, and the trials and tribulations that 
manufacturing in our region has really experienced over the last 
quarter century.
  There is, without a doubt, as Congressman Clarke says, that Detroit 
was the arsenal of democracy, and it still is. All along I-75, from 
Detroit down through Toledo, that as you take it down through Ohio and 
into the areas south, the automobiles, the tanks, all of our overland 
vehicles, the expeditionary fighting vehicle for the Marine Corps, all 
of that, the Warren Tank Command, is all along that region.
  In Toledo, I have to brag a little bit, my hometown, that toddlin' 
town, still is, for all intents and purposes, home to the Jeep, the 
general purpose vehicle for which General Marshall ordered production 
for our troops in the European and Pacific theaters and we won the war. 
Rosie the Riveter, she had presence in Toledo, Ohio, at places like 
Champion Spark Plug where our mom worked, or at then Kaiser Jeep 
Corporation from which our father retired.
  One of the most important challenges we have in this Congress is to 
have patriotic capitalism, to reward investment in America through our 
tax code. Not to let outsourcing win, but to let insourcing win, in the 
way we look at the books here at the national level.
  In addition to that, I have a bill to renegotiate NAFTA; because back 
in 1993, NAFTA gave the green light to globalization and outsourcing, 
and every other trade agreement that has come down the pike has 
outsourced more jobs than insourced jobs for us. We got away from 
making it in America, and in sector after sector, closed markets in 
Japan, in China, in South Korea snuffed out production here as their 
production grew. But it has reached a breaking point. It has reached a 
breaking point in our country.
  We have had to, through defense legislation we passed, saved the 
strategic metals industry, beryllium, titanium, magnesium, all of these 
important metals, both in defense as well as in the commercial 
industrial sector we could lose to other places. Our ability to do 
machine tooling, that was one of the first fights I had in here in the 
President's investment tax credit for investment in the United States 
to save the tooling, which is located within 300 miles of Detroit and 
Toledo. That's what America has. Is it any wonder that unemployment is 
9 percent when you have these wacko trade deals that outsource more 
jobs?
  The one bill I haven't mentioned, which is short-term, but we have so 
many people who are long-term unemployed.
  This morning I asked Chairman Bernanke from the Federal Reserve, what 
do we do with people that want to work in Detroit, in Toledo, in places 
across this country? And he basically answered the question. I said, 
``Please give us your suggestions.'' And he said, ``Well, you know, we 
ought to tie unemployment compensation to somehow job training so 
people can be retooled back into the workforce in a very productive 
way, because I think we could lose the value of the work ethic 
itself.''
  So the issue of training, the issue of education is a very important 
one, Congressman Garamendi, that you have well outlined there.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might interrupt for just a second and pick up on 
that subject of education. We are now, in this Chamber on this floor in 
Congress and the Senate, engaging in a debate about how the Federal 
Government can support these critical educational investments. The 
proposal that we anticipate being made tomorrow by our Republican 
colleagues would significantly reduce the funding for the workforce 
investment boards across the Nation. These are local organizations put 
together in counties and cities to support reeducating workers who have 
been laid off from jobs that have gone offshore. Those educational 
programs, career educational, vocational education programs are crucial 
to upgrade the skills of our current workforce and the workforce of 
tomorrow.
  So as we go through this debate about deficits versus taxes versus 
cuts, we need to keep in mind the critical investments that are made 
every year,

[[Page 1401]]

and have been for decades, by the Federal Government to support things 
like education.

                              {time}  1430

  Without education, which is the most crucial of all investments, this 
Nation cannot compete. So the point you brought up, Ms. Kaptur, is so 
critically important that the reeducation, the upgrading of skills and 
the support, I would add, from the Federal Government is going to be 
debated here.
  So watch carefully, America. Watch carefully what is happening here 
in Congress, and make sure that you participate in this debate. It is 
not just about balancing the budget; it is about giving Americans the 
opportunity to get a job, in this case education.
  Thank you for allowing me to interrupt.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Oh, it is my privilege. I wanted to reinforce what you 
were saying about education and the Workforce Investment Act. In the 
counties that I represent, whether it is the Source in Lucas County or 
One Shop Stopping in Ottawa County, every single county has workforce 
investment boards that try to connect to our community colleges and 
institutions beyond high school in order to help people transition into 
education, as well as those who fall out of the workforce and have to 
retool.
  I was shocked to hear today that on the other side of the aisle, they 
can't bring up a bill to extend trade adjustment assistance to workers 
who have been booted out of their jobs because their companies moved to 
Mexico or to Korea or to China and workers are thrown out of work. That 
program expires February 13, and they were not able to bring up a bill 
to extend that for the millions of people across our country who have 
lost their jobs in manufacturing because they moved abroad. I just 
think that that is simply unconscionable.
  I say to the gentleman that the important issue of linking our 
community colleges, our apprenticeship programs, our university 
programs, our GED programs to help people move into, and, frankly, many 
of our small business programs, to help people move into the private 
sector is something that is so vitally needed and cannot be done in 
this economy in areas of high unemployment without the Federal 
Government partnering with them.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I know that you have spent much time on energy policy 
issues. It is a critical issue for the Nation's security. It is an 
issue that really speaks not only to climate change, which some people 
believe isn't real, but I happen to think it is a fundamental problem 
facing us and future generations.
  But even if you are not into climate change, you have to be aware 
that we have a very serious energy security issue in the United States, 
one that really puts our Nation at risk. At any moment we could see the 
shutdown of the flow of oil from one or another part of the world and, 
bam, we have got a crisis in America.
  We also know that we are shipping off to countries, many of whom are 
not our friends, $1 billion a day; $1 billion a day of hard-earned 
American money is flowing offshore as oil from the petro-dictators of 
the world flows into our country.
  So the American energy policy is of profound importance; and all 
across this Nation, and you have spoken to this also in the past, all 
across this Nation people are saying, we need an American energy policy 
that brings our energy sources onshore and gives us the opportunity to 
capture the green technologies of the future. Solar, solar-wind, solar-
photovoltaic, solar-thermal systems, nuclear, all of these potential 
energy sources, biofuels, are out there in the future for us if we 
aggressively put in place the public policies that support the creation 
of these new technologies and the production of those machines, of 
those solar systems, of those wind turbines, of those advanced 
biofuels, produce them, manufacture them in America.
  Now, I think you were telling me that in your area there is an effort 
to build some of these pieces of equipment. Could you share with us 
what is happening in Ohio?
  Ms. KAPTUR. For 25 years we have been trying to give birth to the 
solar sector, and the Toledo region, northern Ohio, is home to one of 
the three solar platforms on the continent.
  People go, well, but you don't live in California. I said, no, but I 
historically represent the glass industry, which advanced into the 
photovoltaic industry. So the hottest act on Wall Street a couple of 
years ago was First Solar. A company called Xunlight is about to send 
out its first shipment to Italy this spring. We have other companies, 
like Kelsey-Hayes, that are in the process of bringing up their factory 
floors. There is Nextronics, one of the solar inverter companies that 
is hiring and looking for financing to expand their operation. There 
are many companies that didn't exist 25 years ago when we started. So I 
actually have seen what is happening.
  But my fear, my fear is that the intellectual property will be 
stolen; that it will be no different than the automotive industry; that 
you can't staple it down; that we have to have a balanced trade policy 
and very tough intellectual property protections. I see your 
intellectual property proposal up there. I completely agree with that, 
because if they take our property, our intellectual property, we lose 
our ability to continue to manufacture and be suppliers globally.
  So I wanted to say, Congressman Garamendi, you referenced oil. People 
say, well, why should we incentivize solar and hydrogen and biofuels 
and all these sectors, as if we weren't subsidizing the petroleum 
industry by allowing them to book their royalties or not book their 
royalties and be charged taxes, as though our entire military 
establishment wasn't deployed around the globe in order to protect 
those sea lanes so that petroleum can get in here for refining.
  We have to realize we are already subsidizing a sector that is going 
to be more diminished as this 21st century moves forward. So either you 
live in the shell of the past, or you break out of it and create a 
whole new independent America, again, from an energy standpoint; and 
that is why we need to move.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. But let me just add a couple of things. You hit one of 
my hot buttons there. I am on the House Armed Services Committee, and I 
asked, how much money do we spend protecting the flow of oil? Well, the 
Department of Defense didn't come up with an answer, but Rand 
Corporation, one of the consulting firms, said, I think we can do that.
  They came back with a number that is about 15 percent of the total 
defense budget. So we are talking over $100 billion a year to protect 
the flow of oil. That is in addition to the $1 billion a day, which is 
almost what, $365 billion, that we are also sending overseas. So we are 
looking at somewhere near half a trillion dollars a year because we 
are, as you said, stuck in the last two centuries' energy policy.
  Now, here in this Chamber just a couple of weeks ago standing behind 
me was the President of the United States; and when he said we should 
end the subsidies we are giving to oil companies and transfer those 
subsidies to the energy of the future, the green technologies, I stood 
up and cheered. My friend, I guess it was my date for the night, is 
that the word, my date for the night, a good Republican, kind of stood 
up and clapped his hands, because he is a moderate Republican.
  But, nonetheless, it is really true. It is billions and billions of 
dollars a year that we are subsidizing a very successful industry. We 
don't need to do that. They don't need our subsidy. They are the 
richest industry in the world. Fine, end the subsidies, bring that 
money back and put it into the green energy so that in your area your 
solar voltaic manufacturers will have the opportunity.
  I am going to add just one thing here and keep this microphone for a 
second. At this moment, tomorrow the House Republicans will put forth 
their budget which calls for, we anticipate, I hope I am wrong, I will 
be happy to apologize tomorrow if I am wrong, but it is anticipated 
that their proposal will terminate many of the tax breaks that are 
given to encourage solar, wind, photovoltaic, advanced biofuels, all of 
those

[[Page 1402]]

new green energy technologies. I hope I am wrong. I really hope I am 
wrong, because how else can we build our future energy security unless 
we create the new energy sources? And if we fail, those jobs will be 
created overseas and we will import.

                              {time}  1440

  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman be kind enough to yield?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. You know, there are some people that live in the past and 
there are others that are involved in inventing the future. And when 
you have the major trade deficit category ``imported petroleum,'' and 
you have marines and soldiers dying all over the world to protect that, 
pretty soon you begin to think, You know what? This picture has to 
change.
  Every time our country's gas prices go up over $4 a gallon, we go 
into deep, deep recession. We are trying to crawl out of one just now. 
And in 2007-2008, gas prices went over $4 a gallon. People forget that. 
The mortgage foreclosure crisis followed that. But the point was it 
happened to us again. How many times do our people have to suffer 
before we realize the source of the problem?
  And I had a great experience. I had to go back to the University of 
Wisconsin, my alma mater, and I gave a commencement address a few weeks 
ago. It was not a bad speech. It was a pretty good speech. But one of 
the lines I used was: And America just simply must grasp the future and 
restore our energy independence. That was the loudest applause I got in 
this massive audience. And I thought, The American people know it. They 
know it. We have to do it. We have to make it happen.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The people of America understand that our future lies 
in a secure energy source.
  I'm carrying two bills this year that I actually introduced last 
year.
  I'm going to say good-bye to my good friend from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). 
Thank you so very much for joining us.
  I introduced two bills last year that deal with this issue. Our tax 
money has, in the past, been used to buy photovoltaic cell systems for 
houses and businesses, wind turbines, and other green energy equipment 
that is manufactured offshore so that our tax money is actually used to 
subsidize businesses and manufacturing that is in other parts of the 
world. And I'm going, What sense is that? Let's use our tax money to 
help American businesses who manufacture wind turbines here in America.
  In my own district we have two major wind farms, huge operations, 
producing enormous amounts of power. However, many of those turbines in 
recent years--and great steel towers, 400 feet high--are made overseas. 
And yet our tax money subsidizes the importation of the steel towers, 
the importation of the turbines, and all of the equipment that goes 
with it. And I say, Time out. Time out. This makes no sense at all.
  So, one of the bills that I've introduce simply says that if you want 
to take advantage of a Federal tax subsidy--which I hope will continue 
in the future--to put a photovoltaic system on your roof, to install a 
wind turbine, to do advanced biofuels, or to build a solar thermal 
system out in the deserts in the West, then it must be American-made 
equipment. No more buying offshore equipment using our tax dollars. 
Now, you want to use your own money? I don't care where you get that 
photovoltaic system or that wind turbine. But if you're using American 
tax dollars, it must be made in America.
  The other piece of legislation is similar. In my own district, one of 
the transit districts that buys buses and moves people around decided 
that they needed new buses. Well and good. They're using the local tax 
dollars. They're using some Federal tax dollars from the gasoline and 
diesel tax, excise tax that all of us pay when we buy a gallon of gas. 
It's 18.4 cents. If you're buying diesel, it's 24.4 cents for every 
gallon you buy. Much of that money goes into building and maintaining 
our roads. Good. About $3 billion of it a year goes into buying buses 
and trains and supporting public transportation. Good.
  I asked him, Where's the bus being made? Oh, we got a wonderful bus 
built in Belgium. And I go, No. Don't you understand that in the San 
Francisco Bay area, one of the very few bus manufacturing areas left in 
your own area, people who commute on your buses work in that factory, 
and you're buying a bus from Belgium rather than buying a locally made 
bus that is just as good?
  They said, Well, we like the size of the back window.
  There ought to be a law. There ought to be a law that if it's our tax 
dollars that are being used to buy equipment--buses, trains, planes, 
whatever--it must be made in America. After all, how can we create and 
reestablish the great manufacturing sector of America if we simply 
export our dollars and get a bus--good bus, no doubt about it, has a 
nice back window--but it's not made in America?
  I am very thankful that this Congress, in passing the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus bill, put in a 
provision concerning high-speed rail. Since 1988, when I was in the 
California Legislature, and together with my colleague here, Jim Costa, 
we offered legislation then that established the High-Speed Rail 
Commission in California. We're patient people. It was 23 years ago. 
But in the Recovery Act there's money for high-speed rail and a 
provision that says that this money can only be spent on equipment 
manufactured in America. Good. Wonderful. That's the kind of law we 
need. We need to support American manufacturers.
  Now, they don't build high-speed rail systems in America. They're 
built in China. They're built in Japan. They're built in the European 
countries. Good for them. But if they want part of this action, if they 
want to build the train sets or other pieces of the equipment, then 
establish your manufacturing plant in America. Come to America.
  And I'll note--and I've seen it in the full-page advertisements in 
Roll Call and Politico--some of these companies are advertising, We'll 
make it in America. Excellent. Here's where public policy intersects 
with the private sector to create good middle class manufacturing jobs 
in America. It's the public policy that sets the stage. Let the 
businesses go out and build it; but remember, it's public policy.
  I'm looking for one of my friends who's supposed to join us here from 
Iowa, and he may show up, but I want to go back through this again. 
These are critical public policies that affect the manufacturing sector 
in America. Trade policies. Fair trade, free trade. There's a 
difference. It's easy to harm--and Ms. Kaptur talked about this 
earlier--to harm American workers with trade policies that allow jobs 
to be shipped offshore without an opportunity for American 
manufacturers to participate here at home.
  Also, this is an issue of currency policy. China. Many people, 
including me, believe--and economists believe--that China's currency is 
undervalued by as much as 40 percent. Who's going to be able to compete 
with China when that kind of currency policy is in place? So we passed 
a bill here--it didn't pass the Senate; it's being reintroduced and 
hopefully will go to the Senate and to the President--that forces the 
Department of Commerce to institute a tariff when these kinds of 
currency policies persist.
  Taxes. We talked earlier about the tax policy of ending tax subsidies 
for American corporations that ship jobs offshore. That's done. In the 
tax bill of last year was another incentive for big businesses and 
small businesses to invest in capital equipment now. It's the law. 
Capital equipment purchased by a business this year and the last 3 
months of 2010 can be written off against profits in the first year; 
that is, the year in which it is invested. An enormous encouragement to 
businesses in America to invest in American capital equipment that 
creates jobs down the way.
  I just heard from some farmers in my district that they're out buying 
irrigation systems, replacing pumps, irrigation pipe, and other kinds 
of systems because they want to take advantage of that tax law. And so 
they are encouraging the production of those facilities. We just talked 
about energy

[[Page 1403]]

policy at length here, and there's much more to discuss on energy.
  The labor issues. We must have a well-educated labor force, and that 
ties into education. The most fundamental of all investments is 
education. If we don't have a well-educated workforce, one that's 
prepared to compete in every sector, this Nation will not be able to 
compete. So if we want to make it in America, we have got to make sure 
that our current labor force is trained and retrained to take the new 
jobs that are going to be created; and for tomorrow's labor force, the 
men and women that are in school today, that they have the very best 
education.
  It's not happening. This is a great tragedy in America. We are not 
adequately educating our children. It is a very serious problem. It's 
pervasive. And in the discussions in this House, in the committees over 
the next month and a half, this issue is going to come back many, many 
times as the effort to cut the Federal budget in education goes 
forward.
  I will add that, in the education sector, for those that are in 
higher education, a very, very important bill passed the Congress, 
again, without Republican support, signed into law by the President, 
that would end the subsidy given to private banks to run the student 
loan programs.

                              {time}  1450

  Those subsidies are over. The money is plowed back into the student 
loans, increasing the availability of student loans and decreasing the 
interest rates on student loans--a wise policy that creates a much more 
efficient Student Loan Program for kids that are in the higher 
education system.
  Discussed by my colleague Marcy Kaptur was intellectual property, 
which is critically important in California with the high-tech 
industries--the computer industry and the like.
  Then this last one down here, infrastructure, is profoundly 
important. America moves on infrastructure. It moves on streets and 
highways, on rails and airlines, and in airports. All of those 
infrastructure systems are financed, in part, by local governments, by 
State governments, and by the Federal Government.
  One of the very first actions taken in the new 112th Congress was a 
rule from the Rules Committee that would significantly reduce the 
availability of money for infrastructure. Once again, as we begin to 
debate the expenditure, tax and deficit issue, this issue will come 
back.
  So, for Americans, please listen. Listen to what is happening in 
Washington with regard to the budget issues.
  It's not just cut and slash and burn. It's what is the money being 
used for. What are we using the money for? Are we using it to build our 
roads, to build our transportation, to build our infrastructure, our 
water systems, our levee protection/flood protection systems, or are we 
using it in some wasteful way?
  If it's wasteful, don't do it. But if it's a critical investment, 
what happens if we don't make that investment? What happens if we don't 
educate our kids? What happens if we don't build the water system or 
the sanitation system? We have to think about what happens if we don't 
make these investments.
  We also have to think about what happens when we invest over $100 
billion a year to fight a war in Afghanistan. Do you want to make a 
cut? I'll tell you where I'll cut. I'll cut right there. Over $100 
billion. What if we took that money, left some in Afghanistan for 
economic/social development, focused like a laser on the terrorist 
organizations--some there, some in Pakistan, some in Yemen, some in 
Somalia, and some in America--but got our military out of Afghanistan 
and brought that money home and invested in our own infrastructure.
  Personally, for me, I live in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We 
are dependent upon the levees for flood protection, so we go to the 
Army Corps of Engineers and say, We need to have these systems 
designed.
  Well, we can't do it right now.
  Why can't you do it right now?
  We don't have the personnel.
  Where are the personnel?
  Well, they're building things in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Okay, life's about choices.
  On this floor, this Congress is going to make some really serious 
choices in the weeks ahead. Those choices are going to be before us. As 
this issue of the deficit and as this issue of budget cuts come into 
focus, what will be cut?
  Pay attention to this: When we do a tax policy that gives a $750 
billion tax break to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, don't come 
back to this floor and tell me that that's a good thing but a bad thing 
to educate our children. When we are on this floor and we want to spend 
$100 billion or more fighting what will ultimately be an unsuccessful 
war in Afghanistan but then tell me that we cannot build our 
infrastructure to protect our people from floods or that we cannot 
build our transportation system, it's about choices.
  It's about choices, and we're going to make those choices here on 
this floor.
  Over the next several weeks and months ahead, I can guarantee you 
that the Democratic minority in this House will be talking about this 
issue of Make It In America, because if America is going to make it, we 
have to once again make it in America. We have to make sure that 
General Motors and Ford--the great manufacturing sector of America--is 
strong and vibrant and that it has the support it needs, that it has 
the Federal policies in place that support those manufacturing jobs so 
that it no longer puts American manufacturing at a disadvantage.
  So stay tuned. This is going to be a constant thematic that we will 
be carrying in the weeks ahead because we are determined that the 
Federal policies will support making it in America.

                          ____________________