[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5342-5348]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE DEFICIT AND JOBS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, we intend tonight to talk about the 
deficit, solutions to the deficit, where it came from and what can be 
done about it in the context of creating jobs here in America. But 
before we get into that, we just heard a whole hour of talk that really 
is based upon a fallacious foundation, that is, it is just not correct.
  Last year in 2010, it was the Republican Senators that blocked every 
attempt to pass legislation by threatening a veto and denying the 60 
votes that were necessary. So when it came time to do a budget, it was 
impossible to put a budget through the Senate because of the Republican 
blockade in the use of the filibuster.
  Similarly, when it came time to fund the government, to appropriate 
the money, the same thing happened. It was impossible to get the 60 
votes out of the Senate because of the Republican blockade. So 
everything that we have heard over the last hour about the process that 
is now under way, the continuing resolutions, began with the blockade 
in the Senate by the Republicans as they continually threatened a 
filibuster. That's why we are where we are today.
  Now, with regard to the funding of the military, let's understand 
that the Democrats have always consistently voted to fund the military 
when it was a straight up-or-down vote. However, in the CR, the first 
CR that did have funding for the military, it also had extraordinary 
cuts that would destroy 700,000 jobs in the last 6 months of this 
fiscal year--March, April, May, June, July, August, September, and 
October--700,000 jobs lost.
  The Democrats said no way, no way are we going to throw 700,000 
employed Americans out of work, and we rejected that. Put a clean CR 
for the funding of the military on, and you'll have a 100 percent vote. 
But when you cobble together the kinds of foolish cuts, unwarranted 
cuts, 700,000 lost jobs, and then attach to it the military and expect 
support, you won't get it.
  The Democrats want this government funded, and we fought for more 
than a year and a half to get the government funded. We were blocked 
along the way. And now, as the Republicans put out these pieces of 
legislation, the continuing resolution, and attach to it totally 
unacceptable language and unacceptable cuts, to the American people, 
not to the Democrats, but to the American people, then we find this 
gridlock. What we want to do really is talk about jobs.
  Joining me tonight are two wonderful legislators. One is imported 
from Detroit, and another one from the manufacturing capital of the 
world.

                              {time}  2030

  I want to start with an understanding of why we are where we are. I 
know my colleagues will help me on this.
  First of all, the Democrats have been about creating jobs, from the 
stimulus to today. The GOP majority has been in power for 14 weeks. 
Zero, no, nada, nothing to create jobs. Not one jobs bill. In fact, the 
only bill that they have put on that has anything to do with jobs is 
one that destroys 700,000 jobs. So keep this in mind, American public. 
Fourteen weeks of GOP leadership in the House and not one piece of 
legislation that would create a job putting Americans to work this year 
and next year. That's the fact.
  Now, another fact: Where did the deficit come from? In order to 
understand where we are, we need to know where we've been. Here is what 
the deficit is all about. Beginning with Ronald Reagan, the budget was 
not balanced. Ronald Reagan at the end of his term left for the 
American public a $1.4 trillion deficit in the years ahead. At the end 
of each year and, therefore, at the end of a President's term, the 
Congressional Budget Office makes an estimate of what is going to 
happen over the next 5 to 10 years. At the end of Ronald Reagan's term, 
they said there would be a $1.4 trillion deficit going forward.
  George Walker Bush followed Reagan; and at the end of his 
administration, the estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office was that there would be a $3.3 trillion deficit going forward. 
That's the numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office, 
nonpartisan group.
  Bill Clinton came to office, established the pay-for program, 
established the balanced budget program; and at the end of his 
administration, it was projected going forward that there would be a 
$5.6 trillion surplus, wiping out the American debt. That's what 
happened during the Clinton administration. So that in the years beyond 
the Clinton administration, had the same policies gone forward, the 
American debt would have been wiped out.
  However, another gentleman was elected, George W. Bush. In his first 
year in office, the Bush tax cuts went into effect, the Afghanistan war 
started, and the deficit began to grow once again. So that in his 
second year, the second Bush tax cuts were added and the Iraq war was 
started. Never before in America's history has a war been

[[Page 5343]]

under way that was not paid for with tax increases. Instead, the 
Republicans and George W. Bush decided that they would start not one 
war, but two wars, and pay for it with borrowed money. The fourth piece 
was the unpaid-for Medicare drug benefit which didn't even require that 
the Federal Government force the insurance companies to compete for 
drugs.
  The result was at the end--oh, did I forget the Great Recession? I 
did. You add the Great Recession to it, so at the end of the George W. 
Bush administration, the projection from the Congressional Budget 
Office was that the deficit would grow by an additional $11.5 trillion.
  The George W. Bush Republican period created the Great Recession, two 
wars unpaid for, a major increase in the Medicare program, and the 
result, the Great Recession and the great deficit. This is what Obama 
faced the day he came into office, the greatest recession since the 
Great Depression and an $11.5 trillion deficit going forward. Those are 
the facts. That's where we started this.
  Now, what are we going to do about this problem? The President has 
put forth a budget that would, in 8 years, significantly reduce the 
deficit so that it wouldn't grow and allow us to pay the interest, not 
removing it, not paying it all off--neither do the Republican 
proposals--but it would put us in a position where it would not grow. 
It takes time to solve the huge deficit problem that George W. Bush, 
Ronald Reagan, and Bush, Sr. put us into. We can do it. But we cannot 
do it unless we grow this economy. It's about growing the economy and 
creating jobs that we would now like to talk about.
  I am going to turn now to my colleague from Ohio, Betty Sutton, who 
has been working on the issue of putting Americans to work for a long, 
long time. Please share with us where you are now with this proposal 
that you are putting forward.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for your leadership. 
You gave us a little bit of background that I think is really, really 
important when we talk about where this deficit came from and how it 
came to be. I would just add a couple of other points that I think are 
significant.
  At the end of last year, we will remember that the same people who 
are now cutting indiscriminately, cuts aimed at seniors, cuts aimed at 
middle class Americans, cuts aimed at Head Start, low-income housing, 
heating assistance, Community Development Block Grants that add to 
economic activities in our communities, those same folks, some of them, 
were over there fighting to make sure that we had super tax cuts for 
billionaires that were also going to add exponentially to the deficit.
  Then they turn around and say, hey, we've got this horrible deficit, 
and so now everyone has to sacrifice. But whenever the American people 
hear the words, ``Everyone needs to sacrifice,'' chances are if you're 
in the 95 percent of the population that controls very little of the 
wealth in this country, they mean you. They don't mean that top 5 
percent that controls most of the wealth in this country. They are all 
about protecting what they have and grabbing more power.
  It's very interesting when we talk about where the policies coming 
out of the Republican House majority are these days, because all of the 
cuts seem to be targeted at the people back in the district where I 
live, hardworking, salt-of-the-Earth constituents whom I am so honored 
to serve.
  Your point is well taken and very sad, that the one bill that they 
put out there--I mean, hey, you don't have to take our word for it--the 
bill that they put out there puts 700,000 jobs, more than at risk, it's 
been determined by their own Republican analysts that it would cost us 
700,000 jobs. Frankly, our economic recovery, which is so fragile, is 
under threat.
  A group of 300 economists, including two Nobel laureates, wrote a 
letter warning that the shortsighted budget cuts to, quote, human 
capital, our infrastructure and the next generation of scientific and 
technological advances would threaten future economic competitiveness 
as well as the current recovery.
  So the path that the Republicans are on, and it's funny because we 
just saw the new budget proposal unveiled and they called it a path to 
prosperity. I think that the better name is a path to poverty. At any 
rate, the path that they are on is not a good one.
  We know that the answer to what ails our economy is we need to put 
the American people back to work. We need to have jobs that will create 
opportunities for the people that we are so honored to represent, that 
will keep our communities running, will have the revenue that we need 
to pay for those services, those firefighters, those teachers, those 
police officers, those nurses, those public servants that make our 
world turn.

                              {time}  2040

  So everyone at all levels of government, regardless of party, should 
be focused on priority one--getting Americans back to work. That's 
where we come in with what we need to be focused on, which is: How do 
we make it in America? Manufacturing matters.
  So we are working in this House, as you know, Congressman Garamendi, 
to make sure we put forth an agenda on the Democratic side of the 
aisle, and we hope that our Republican colleagues will stop being 
deflected and will start focusing on what will help the people we 
serve, which would be focusing on these jobs, giving people 
opportunity, and creating real value by making things in this country. 
Not only will we make the products; we will then give a chance to the 
American people to make it in America, and America will make it again.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much for laying out the thematics as 
well as the past history.
  Our theme in the Democratic Caucus here in the House is one of making 
it in America--once again, going into Target, going down to the local 
automobile dealership, and finding products that are made in America. 
The great strength of America, historically for the last 150 years, has 
been its manufacturing strength, but we need to understand that, in the 
last decade, we have seen the hollowing out of the American 
manufacturing industry.
  In 1999, there were 17,383,000 Americans working in manufacturing. In 
the decade that followed, more than 6 million of those jobs were lost, 
and we saw the hollowing out of American manufacturing. That's the 
strength. It also happens to be the middle class. So our theme is 
``make it in America.'' As you say, if America is going to make it, we 
must, once again, make it in America. Manufacturing matters.
  Let me put up here on the board why it matters to the American 
public.
  What has happened in the last decade has been a skewing of the 
economy, the great unshared prosperity of America. If we look at the 
bottom fifth of the population, these are the poor. They've seen a $200 
annual increase in their well-being. For the next fifth, 20 to 40 
percent, they've seen just under $10,000. As you go up, if you look at 
the top 10 percent, $300,000. If you look at the top 1 percent of 
Americans, what has happened with them? Their wealth has grown by over 
$5,978,870.
  So what has happened as a result of the policies of the Bush 
administration is a push to the wealthy and the clampdown of the 
working class in America. The middle class in America is losing the 
race to wealth. It is losing it to the top 1 percent.
  Let me put this another way.
  There are, perhaps, some people you might recognize at the bottom, 
the poorest fifth, the folks who work for Wal-Mart. Eleven percent of 
the wealth went to them. For the second poorest--these are the 
teachers--it's the same thing. There was very little growth in their 
income. As you get to the millionaires and billionaires, the Donald 
Trumps of the world, they have seen a 256 percent--a 256 percent--
increase in their wealth. At the bottom, an 11 percent. For the 
teachers, an 18, 20 percent. For manufacturing, maybe a 32 percent. 
Here is where the money is: It's with the super wealthy. They have seen 
a 256 percent.
  Take a close look, America. Take a close look at what was proposed 
yesterday by the Republican caucus:

[[Page 5344]]

  Yesterday, the Republican caucus proposed to take this skewing of 
wealth, the unshared prosperity, and push even more of it to the super 
wealthy of America. It is unconscionable, but that's what they've 
proposed to do, and they're going to do it with tax breaks for the 
wealthy, continuing on, indefinitely, increasing the deficit by $1 
trillion--a $1 trillion increase--because they want even more wealth to 
go to the super wealthy.
  At the same time, they're cutting the benefits that the working men 
and women rely upon. What are those benefits? Well, how about 
employment opportunities? How about educational opportunities? All of 
those are cut, and they're taking money out of the economy so that 
700,000 men and women will lose their jobs this year, in the next 9 
months. That's the Republican agenda.
  For those who are not working, the seniors of America, the 
Republicans are proposing to end Medicare as we know it. It will be the 
privatization of Medicare, giving every senior in this Nation an 
$11,000 voucher so that they can then go and negotiate with the 
rapacious greed of the health insurance companies. If you want to live 
to be 65 and finally have a health insurance policy that you can count 
on, don't look to the Republicans, because they intend to terminate 
Medicare as we know it and turn over the well-being--the health and, 
indeed, the life of every senior--to the vagrancies, to the rapacious 
profit orientation of the health insurance industry. That's what's 
going to happen if the Republicans get their way. We'll do everything 
we can to stop it, and we will also do everything we can to build the 
American middle class.
  Ms. SUTTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I would be delighted to.
  Ms. SUTTON. In addition to that, at the same time they're cutting 
Medicare and changing it and removing the guarantee that seniors have 
known, which is that they're going to have access to that care when 
they need it, isn't it also true that they're continuing to protect 
those subsidies to big oil companies, those billions of dollars in 
subsidies, and are continuing to protect tax breaks that ship those 
jobs overseas, which has led, in large part, to the decline of American 
manufacturing?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Precisely so.
  Look at their budget proposal. Their budget proposal says that the 
oil companies in the last 10 years have earned a profit of $947 
billion. That would be $53 billion less than $1 trillion in profits, 
nearly $1 trillion in profits. Yet our Republican colleagues say they 
need to continue to be subsidized by the American taxpayers. Hello? 
What's that all about? Do you want to balance the budget? Remove those 
subsidies from the oil companies, and let them pay taxes. Why should we 
be subsidizing the wealthiest industry in the world, the oil industry? 
That's what they want to do--and you talk about tax breaks. Good 
heavens.
  I want to turn now to our colleague from the great City of Detroit. 
We loved that advertisement in the Super Bowl. We now call Hansen 
Clarke the ``imported from Detroit Representative.''
  Please share with us your thoughts here.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, the great gentleman from 
California, Congressman Garamendi.
  You're right. I was born and raised in Detroit, and am very proud of 
it--imported from Detroit, as you say.
  One reason why U.S. manufacturing has been so innovative is that we 
use the best research. As a matter of fact, U.S. manufacturing performs 
half of the research and development in the United States. It has been 
fantastic, and let me give you an example.
  In Detroit, which is the district that I represent, General Motors 
Corporation is now manufacturing one of the best electric-powered 
vehicles around, the Chevy Volt. The cost of the Chevy Volt has 
dropped. It's very affordable now, which is, in large part, because of 
the Department of Energy's investment into research and development in 
the lithium-ion battery. The cost of that battery has now dropped down 
to just $8,000 apiece.

                              {time}  2050

  So this car is not only a great car, saving gas, it's a good riding 
vehicle, but also it will be affordable.
  But here's the problem: The problem is that many in the majority 
right now want to cut back on research and development that's going to 
be so essential for us not only to build the best products to be sold 
here, but also so that we can compete overseas. What's very disturbing 
is that, for the first time since 2008, the U.S. level of investment in 
clean energy technology has now dropped from first place in the world. 
We used to be number one in the world in clean energy technology 
research until recently. We have fallen now to number three, number 
three behind China and Germany. That's not acceptable.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. In the Republican continuing resolution, H.R. 1, they 
reduce the research budget for energy research here in America, cutting 
out vital research at the Department of Energy, at the laboratories 
across this Nation. And what are they thinking?
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Well, you're right, this makes no sense at 
all. And I'll tell you what's disturbing is that the British National 
Science Academy predicted that if we go on this path that we're going 
on right now--which we're going to ask the American people to back us 
up because we've got to put more research and development dollars into 
building these great manufacturing products. But if we don't do that, 
if we don't change, China could overtake us in scientific output in 
just a couple of years. That's not acceptable. We want to make sure 
that the best products are imported from Detroit, not from China.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you so very much.
  And how correct you are in laying out this strategy of how we can 
move the American manufacturing industry: Education, a well-educated 
workforce; research on fundamental issues like energy systems, 
batteries, transportation; and then making those things in America, 
importing from Detroit to American consumers and selling around the 
world. However, when the Republicans put together a proposal such as 
H.R. 1--their continuing resolution that would cut 700,000 jobs out--it 
also cut out the research budget for energy research, for battery 
research, for transportation research, and in addition to that, 
research for health. The National Institutes of Health budget was 
decimated. That's not good public policy. We need to make these 
financial investments. And if the Democratic strategy of making it in 
America is carried forward, Detroit will prosper and America will 
prosper.
  Another part of our country in trouble for manufacturing, but a great 
manufacturing center of America, is Illinois. Our Representative from 
that great State is here to join us, Jan Schakowsky.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am so happy to join you. And I thank you for coming 
down to the floor each week and making the point that we have choices 
in the United States of America.
  We can put our people back to work. We can reduce our debt and our 
deficit, but we don't have to do it on the backs of middle class 
Americans, and we certainly don't have to do it on the backs of our 
elderly. That's exactly what the budget proposal by our Republican 
Budget Chairman Paul Ryan says. He said, look, the country is broke. 
We've got to just show courage and we've got to cut that deficit--we 
agree with that--and the way that we think we ought to do it is by 
ending Medicare as we know it, by abolishing Medicare. Instead of that 
guaranteed benefit that all older Americans can aspire to now, can get 
when they're 65 years old, that persons with disabilities would get, 
they know that it's there--and I cannot imagine that there is not every 
single Member of this House, Republican or Democrat, where people come 
in and say, I hope I can make it until I'm 65

[[Page 5345]]

and get on Medicare because I can't get insurance, and even if I could, 
I can't afford it right now or I have a preexisting condition. He wants 
to do it on the backs of senior citizens.
  It's been said many times tonight that 700,000 jobs would be lost if 
H.R. 1--the top priority of the Republicans--were to pass, that the 
cuts that it would make, instead of spurring on jobs, creating jobs, 
putting the 15 million people that want to pay taxes--that's all they 
want is to go back to work and actually pay taxes, that that would be 
their dream come true, and it would also cut our deficit. But you know 
what the American people are thinking? They're thinking, We aren't 
broke--maybe we are, but not everyone is broke in America.
  This is a sign that my staff made before I introduced a bill with an 
idea supported by 81 percent of Americans that it is time for 
millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share; 81 percent of 
Americans. That means it's not just Democrats and it's not just 
Republicans. It's Independents, and I believe that it's Tea Party 
people, too. They know that they are not getting a fair shake and that 
the millionaires are.
  Did you explain the chart?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Go ahead.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, what it says is that from 1979, at that end, to 
2005, this is the growth in income over certain income categories. And 
you can see way down at the end there is a little bracket--even if you 
can't, you get the idea. There is a little sign down there that says 
that the bottom 20 percent of Americans over that period, almost 30 
years, their income increased $200.
  Let's go to the other end. The top 0.1 percent of Americans, their 
average income increased, actually increased, over $6 million. Their 
average income right now is $27 million. Get this: The bottom 90 
percent of Americans--I was even shocked by this number--the average 
income is under $32,000 a year. Top 0.1 percent, $27 million; 90 
percent of the rest of Americans, less than $32,000. This is not good 
for our economy and it is not good for our democracy.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Would you yield for a moment?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. The Republican budget proposal put out yesterday calls 
for a tax decrease for that 0.1 percent from 35 percent to 25 percent.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Just the people who need it, right? Just the people 
who need a tax break. Isn't that astonishing that they should actually 
pay less?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We're talking about super trickle-down theory here.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yeah. Take it from Medicare and give them a tax 
break.
  And, by the way, the top tax bracket in the United States of America 
right now starts at $375,000. So if you make $27 million or $375,000, 
you're still paying the same tax rate.
  What I did was say, okay, let's make the taxes fairer. I said, 
starting at $1 million--that's earning in 1 year--45 percent tax rate. 
And it would ratchet up, $10 to $20 million, $20 to $100 million, $100 
million to $1 billion, and then a $1 billion tax bracket. And you know 
what? There are Americans who have made $1 billion last year. The top 
20 hedge fund managers, an average of over $1 billion a year. One guy 
made over $5 billion in 1 year. I'm saying those billionaires, that top 
tax bracket, 49 percent taxes. And guess what? That is lower than the 
tax rate in all the Reagan years. I'm under Ronald Reagan's highest tax 
bracket. It's fair.
  This is not about punishment. It's not about revenge. It's certainly 
not about jealousy. It is about fairness in our tax system. And we 
would have plenty of money here. We wouldn't have to cut Medicare, of 
course we wouldn't. We wouldn't have to cut Medicaid, the poorest 
people off their health care. We wouldn't have to threaten seniors with 
cuts in Social Security benefits. And we could fund those job training 
programs to put people back to work. We could even fund infrastructure 
programs that put people on the job, or green energy programs that make 
America a leader in the world. We could do all those things. We are not 
broke as a people.

                              {time}  2100

  So my Fairness in Taxation Act, I hope people will sign on as 
cosponsors. Eighty-one percent of Americans think it's a good idea. We 
have to have the courage to follow--listen to people out there, and 
follow
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Our Republican colleagues have consistently said we 
ought to listen. And apparently all that we know about tax policy, 
there's little or no support for reducing the taxes on the super 
wealthy but rather they go the other way. And we're wondering what 
they're thinking over on the other side of the aisle as they continue 
to skew to create the unshared prosperity by even reducing further the 
taxes on the super wealthy.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. One of the things that they say, that Paul Ryan says, 
We all have to sacrifice. Shared sacrifice. I believe in that. I think 
that's a good idea. But some people have been sacrificing for a long 
time.
  If you drew another line starting at the bottom left and going to the 
top right of productivity increases in the United States, that line 
would shoot way up because we have the most productive workers in the 
world. Productivity has soared. And yet where have the benefits gone 
for our more productive workers? Right here. And it has been 
deliberate, and it's been based on policies that have passed in the 
Congress, a partnership between government that's been hand-in-hand 
with the wealthiest Americans. And the rest of America--and you know 
what, the other thing is if you started up here and tracked union 
membership, you would find that line going straight down.
  When workers, as 62 percent of Americans agree is a good thing, have 
collective bargaining, they're able to help raise the middle class 
instead of having a disappearing middle class, which is what's 
happening now.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. And yet we're seeing across this Nation a Republican 
attack on unions claiming that unions are bad. But the great history of 
this Nation is that the union movement, collective bargaining over 
these many, many decades did in fact create the middle class. And so 
that in the 1960s was the period of time when the middle class of 
America was at its peak. It had the greatest distribution of wealth. 
The greatest share of the income went to the middle class. It was also 
the time when the union movement was the strongest in America. Since 
that time through a variety of governmental policies, we have seen a 
decline in the union movement and a commensurate consistent decline in 
the middle class.
  We're going to build the middle class. This is about making it in 
America. This is about rebuilding the middle class.
  I want to now turn to our colleague from the great industrial--the 
once and future great industrial center of America, Ohio, and share 
with us--you've got some specific proposals that you've put forward. 
I'd like to talk about them. I know that our Congresslady from Illinois 
has, and I do, too, so we're going to talk about specific things that 
we're going to do to rebuild the middle class by making it in America.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman and I thank the gentlewoman for her 
making the case about the fundamental unfairness about what is going on 
with the proposals coming from the other side of the aisle.
  And I think that the point that the gentleman just made about the 
union movement in this country, helping to build the middle class and 
frankly, leading us to a place where we had a strong middle class in 
this country--you know, it's that middle class that makes America so 
great, that people have a chance to aspire to that American dream.
  And so when you stand on this floor or you come here as we do, and 
you see attack after attack on those middle class families--from 
attacks on prevailing wage payments that are just living wages that are 
going to those folks who work in our trades. We see those attacks come 
up over and over again at the same time that those on the other side of 
the aisle are protecting that huge income disparity, it's

[[Page 5346]]

really, really hard to take, I know for us over here, and it's hard for 
the people who I represent who work hard for a living and are just 
looking for a chance to take care of their families and make their way.
  We also see those attacks on collective bargaining to silence 
workers, to take away rights to even have a voice at the table, to be 
part of the solution, which they have been and will continue to be.
  You know, those power grabs, those attempts to disempower ordinary 
Americans, we have to fight against. There is a better way, and this 
Make It in America agenda offers us that better way.
  Manufacturing, we all know, is a multiplier in terms of jobs. We know 
that for every manufacturing job, it has a multiplier effect of four 
more jobs. And in some industries, the auto industries, it's as high as 
10 additional jobs.
  We know that where people manufacture, if we manufacture in America, 
we do research and development in America. We maintain our capacity to 
be strong as a Nation--both economically as well as in our sense of 
national security. What happens if we can't make it in America?
  So here we are. We have a number of proposals, we know that we need a 
national manufacturing strategy in this country. Democrats are 
committed to making sure that we have one.
  Another area that we need to work on that I think the American 
people--honestly I think that they expect this, and I'm hoping that our 
friends across the aisle will see fit to join us in the effort to make 
sure that when taxpayer money is used to build our infrastructure, 
which in and of itself puts people to work, we will use that taxpayer 
money to buy American iron and steel and manufactured goods and get 
that multiplier effect as we build our streets and our roads and our 
bridges and our sewer systems and our water systems and our alternative 
energy products.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Could you just yield for a moment?
  Ms. SUTTON. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. There's a piece of legislation that someone introduced 
that's called Don't Let American Jobs Go Down the Drain. Do you know 
who that was who introduced that piece of legislation?
  Ms. SUTTON. Absolutely. I introduced that legislation.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought you did.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for bringing it up. It is called 
Keep American Jobs from Going Down the Drain Act. And what it says is 
very simple. It says that as we do what we need to do in this country 
to rebuild our infrastructure, our water and sewer systems, that we 
will make sure we do it using American iron and steel and manufactured 
goods because that puts the American people back to work.
  Other countries have similar procurement policies, and it's way past 
time that this country also do what it can to keep these jobs right 
here in Ohio, right here in America.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I love the title, but even more so, I love the 
purpose of your legislation. Using our tax dollars to build the 
infrastructure, the water, the sanitation systems that every city, 
every community needs, and using that money to buy American-made pumps 
and pipes and fittings and valves and all of the rest of the things 
that go into those kinds of systems.
  It's not the only place where American taxpayers' money can be used.
  Let me give you a couple of examples, and these are my pieces of my 
legislation that deal with a similar theme.
  We all pay gasoline tax and a diesel tax--18\1/2\ cents on the 
Federal side and 25 cents for diesel on the Federal side. Where does 
that money go? It goes to build our streets, highways, and buy our 
buses and trains.
  We need a firm policy that says if it is American taxpayer money, 
it's going to be used to buy American-made buses, trains, American-made 
steel, concrete. We need to use our tax money to build the American 
economy so that we are making those things in America.
  I'm going to give you the poster child for the wrong policy. State of 
California going to rebuild the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, a 
multibillion dollar project. Bids went out. An American contractor came 
in with two bids. One bid was for steel in America, and the other bid 
was for steel made in China. The Chinese steel was 10 percent cheaper.
  The State of California--wrong-headed, big mistake--went out and 
said, Well, we're going to save 10 percent. Turns out, the Chinese 
steel was defective, the welds were defective, the bridge was delayed. 
The 10 percent disappeared. The 10 percent was added. The American jobs 
were lost. Never ever, ever again should that happen in America. If 
it's American taxpayer money, then by golly, use American- made 
products. I love it. Don't let American jobs go down the drain. Make 
sure we are making it in America.
  One more thing, and then I want to turn to our minority whip to talk 
about Make It in America.

                              {time}  2110

  We also use American taxpayer dollars to build the solar systems and 
the wind turbine systems in America. Are they made in America? They 
ought to be. There are American manufacturers that make wind turbines 
and make solar. Once again, our taxpayer money. Is it going to be used 
to buy solar panels from China, wind turbines from Europe, or is it 
going to be used to buy American-made wind turbines and American-made 
solar panels? We must pass legislation, and it ought to be Democrat and 
Republican alike, that says finally it's going to be American made. We 
are going to make it in America so that Americans can make it.
  Let me now turn to Steny Hoyer, our esteemed leader, the whip of the 
Democratic caucus. Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Garamendi, I thank you not only for your yielding, but 
more importantly for the extraordinary time you have invested in 
educating all of the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle 
in what can truly be perceived I think as an absolutely nonpartisan, 
bipartisan, pro-American agenda that says we ought to make it in 
America. And if we do, we are going to make it in America. We're going 
to succeed in America.
  You've got our logo up there, Manufacturing Matters. I want to 
congratulate you, and I want to congratulate Ms. Sutton from Ohio, who 
has been such an extraordinary advocate. Her legislation in many 
respects took the automobile industry and put it back on track. That 
was an action that saved literally hundreds of thousands of jobs. 
Thousands of jobs in the automobile industry, but all the jobs that are 
related to the automobile industry. And I congratulate Betty Sutton for 
the leadership she showed. That legislation of course was passed in a 
bipartisan fashion. Not a partisan divide on that issue.
  Mr. Garamendi has been not only educating the Members of this House, 
but as the American public watches the proceedings in this House, 
educating them as well. I go all over America and talk to groups, and 
there is not a group that I have talked to, no matter how liberal, how 
conservative, whether it's a Democratic group, a nonpartisan group, 
anywhere in this country, and I have talked to a number of the heads of 
major corporations, and I have talked to a lot of heads of small 
corporations, 200, 300, 400 members, and all of them are appreciative 
of the fact that we have focused the Congress of the United States and 
the administration and America on the importance of making things in 
America.
  Betty Sutton, as I walked on the floor, was talking about the kinds 
of jobs that we create in manufacturing, which have on average a 22 
percent higher salary. That middle income, middle class workers, 
working Americans can have the kind of quality of life that they 
deserve. And when you see Ford bringing jobs back to America, you see 
Whirlpool bringing jobs back to America, you see other corporations 
bringing jobs back to America, why are they bringing them back to 
America? Because they are finding out that they get better quality and 
higher productivity.

[[Page 5347]]

  The gentleman from California mentioned the steel in the bridge 
that's being built. We make the best steel in America. I was visiting 
the president of U.S. Steel in Pittsburgh. Extraordinary technology. 
And we are the most productive producer of steel now. We frankly in the 
fifties sort of rested on our laurels. And then in the sixties and 
seventies, the Japanese, the Koreans, and others built new plants and 
they overtook us in technology. But it wasn't because we couldn't 
compete; it was that we weren't competing.
  What Make It In America says is American workers can compete with 
anybody in the world. And we are prepared to do so. And this Congress 
hopefully is going to give them the incentives and the tools to do 
that. So I wanted to come on the floor and join you, as I have in 
evenings past, to thank you, because I believe this agenda, if it's 
known to our Republican colleagues fully and our Democratic colleagues, 
but much more importantly to the American people, it's an agenda that I 
have found has the support of 8 to 9 of every Americans who shake their 
head and say, yes, that's the deal. I don't mean that the 1 or 10 
percent are against it. It's just that about 85 percent say, yes, 
that's what we need to do. America can compete. America can be again 
the center of manufacturing and growth and the creation of jobs.
  We know that we've lost some 8 million jobs over the last few years, 
3 or 4 years. We know that Americans are struggling to find employment. 
Well, if we want to find employment for them we need to create jobs for 
them. We need to focus on creating jobs. I am hopeful that as we move 
on in the coming months that we will in fact start focusing on jobs, on 
job creation. We have created, as you know, 1.75 million new private 
sector jobs over the last 13 months. But that's not enough. It's 
progress, but it's not enough.
  So I congratulate the gentleman and thank him for his leadership. And 
I thank Ms. Sutton for hers as well. Two giants in focusing on an 
agenda that we call Make It In America.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Your kind words are much appreciated. But you are very 
much a part of this. This logo itself and the theme Make It In America 
was one that you developed. And we appreciate that and value the 
leadership that you have put into this.
  I want to turn back to our colleague from Ohio. We have about 7 
minutes, I believe, and we are going to wrap this thing up. Mr. Hoyer, 
thank you very much. We really appreciate your work here.
  Ms. Sutton, if you will carry on, I am going to find one more of 
these placards.
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman.
  You know, again, this Make It In America agenda, it really is 
something that we believe that whether you are a Republican, a 
Democrat, that everybody can embrace, and frankly, everybody needs to 
embrace. We saw what happened when we had our economy relying on the 
financial sector, where you had a few people moving money around. And 
it wasn't real value that was being created. When that bubble burst, we 
had a big problem. But when you engage in manufacturing, you take 
something of lesser value and you turn it into something of greater 
value. That is something that we can rely on.
  So one of the things that we have to do is we have to have a national 
manufacturing strategy. And in that national manufacturing strategy, 
like on the agenda, the Make It In America agenda, we need to look at a 
number of things and how they all work together so that they will 
support U.S. manufacturing and U.S. workers.
  Why do we need a manufacturing strategy? Well, it's kind of obvious, 
but I do think it's worth noting that others have national 
manufacturing strategies. So Germany has one, South Korea has one. In 
fact, every other industrialized nation has a network of currency, 
trade, tax, investment, innovation, and skills policies that promote 
their domestic manufacturing. So right here in the House we encourage 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in this Make 
It In America agenda, to promote a national manufacturing strategy that 
deals with trade policies that are fair, and that there will be a 
reciprocity of trade that will no longer leave our workers and our 
businesses at an unfair disadvantage, where others will be forced to 
play by the rules in the same way that our manufacturers and our 
workers play by the rules. A program that also promotes tax policies 
that encourage manufacturing in this country and stops the outsourcing 
of jobs overseas, which we have seen take place for decades now. That 
will be smart with respect to our energy policies, our labor policies.
  We shouldn't be attacking workers. Workers are not the ones who drove 
our economy off the cliff. So that whole issue of disproportionate 
shared sacrifice, right? Just like we saw the disproportionate wealth 
accumulated in this country as it did with the help of the policies 
that were promoted by the last Republican administration. We need 
education policies as a part of that national manufacturing strategy to 
promote a workforce that will keep us competitive and on top. Policies 
that protect intellectual property and research and development right 
here. Because where you have research and development you have 
manufacturing, and vice versa.

                              {time}  2120

  Of course, we need to strengthen and rebuild this country by 
investing in our infrastructure. It puts people to work, and it is what 
we need to do.
  Smart cuts make sense, but so do smart investments, and 
infrastructure is a good way to go.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am going to pick up right on the issues that you 
raised. These are the essential elements of a manufacturing strategy. 
So if we are going to make it in America, we need to make things in 
America and these are the essential things.
  You talk about trade policy. We cannot continue just to give it all 
away and just expect to be importers of cheap products made elsewhere. 
So we need good trade policies that position America's manufacturing 
sector to be competitive.
  We speak specifically here of China, a lot of issues involved in 
China, currency; and it goes on and on. But this is one of the areas 
where we must stand firmly or else we will lose it because somebody 
else is going to make it and ship it here.
  Unfairly, taxes. The tax policy of the Nation needs to encourage 
manufacturing. I want to give two examples that were part of the 
Democratic agenda, and these are now in law. Last year, as part of our 
program, we provided a tax break for American manufacturers who 
invested in capital equipment. We said, don't worry about depreciation. 
You invest in capital equipment, that is grow your manufacturing 
capacity and you could write off against your taxes in 1 year, that 
investment. That's a tax policy.
  The second tax policy we said is it's not right for American 
corporations to get a tax break when they offshore jobs. We said enough 
of that. No more, you are going to do that. On both of these policies, 
our Republican colleagues refuse to join us. So presumably they want to 
continue giving corporations tax breaks when they send jobs offshore, 
and they don't care whether American companies invest here in the 
United States with capital equipment.
  Energy, crucial, crucial. We cannot any longer put our future to risk 
on international oil markets. We are seeing it today, the extraordinary 
rise in the cost of gasoline and diesel, energy policy, energy 
independence, advanced biofuels, conservation, electric cars, all of 
those things.
  Labor, you talked about labor. Again, it was the labor movement that 
created the middle class in America by standing firm and saying the 
workers of America need to share in the great wealth of America. We 
have seen the decline of labor, and we have seen the equal decline of 
the middle class. They go together.
  Labor, fair labor rules, what's going on in the Midwest, Wisconsin, 
your State of Ohio, other States, is wrong. The labor movement and 
collective

[[Page 5348]]

bargaining is crucial to America's middle class because that gives the 
foundation, education policy.
  What in the world are our Republican colleagues thinking about when 
they cut education funding? If we are going to compete, we need a well-
educated workforce, and you can't do it on the cheap. It requires an 
investment.
  I use intellectual property here; we could just as easily use the 
word ``research.'' It is from the research that the new products are 
created. It's in those new products that the great profits are, and 
it's where we must protect the research.
  Again, my Republican colleagues, why are you reducing the research 
budget for America? Why are you doing that, when, in fact, that's where 
the future industries come from? Don't, don't cut there.
  And, finally, infrastructure, the foundation upon which everything 
moves, including thought.
  We used to think of infrastructure being roads, streets, water 
systems, sanitation systems, yes. And now it's the intellectual 
infrastructure, the intellectual highway. All of that infrastructure is 
crucial if we fail to invest. By the way, in terms of the Net highway, 
access to the Net, the United States falls behind virtually every other 
industrialized country in the world and in many cases behind developing 
countries.
  This is a Make it in America strategy. These are the elements: trade 
policy, tax policy, energy policy, labor policy, education, research, 
intellectual property and infrastructure. This is the Democratic 
agenda. This is what we are putting forth. This is what we will fight 
for because this is how you build the American middle class, by making 
it in America.
  I want to thank my colleagues Ms. Sutton; Mr. Clarke, who was here 
earlier; our minority leader. We use the words minority whip now. You 
were our majority leader just a few months ago, and you will once again 
be because this agenda, the Make it in America, is the American 
solution to our economy and to our economic growth and to rebuilding 
the great American middle class.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________