[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7229-7235]
[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 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 just finished a very important debate 
here on the floor dealing with the ability of the American Government 
to understand the threats that face us across this world. I want to 
commend my colleagues both on the Republican and Democratic side for 
working long and hard on the intelligence legislation that will be up 
on the floor, probably tomorrow.
  In the hour ahead, what I would really like to focus on and bring to 
the attention of the American people is the necessity for jobs. We 
spend a lot of time talking about security, as we should, and we've 
certainly seen that in the successful effort to bring down bin Laden 
and finally see that justice was properly served. Congratulations to 
the military, to the intelligence community, and particularly to 
President Obama for his courage in ordering that action, risky to be 
sure, but ultimately extraordinarily successful.
  The other part of American security is our economy. At the end of the 
day and even at the beginning of the day, this Nation will never be 
secure unless we have a very strong, vibrant, growing economy that 
provides every American that wants to work with the opportunity to go 
to work. And so the focus of our attention for this hour ahead is 
economic security: how to secure the economic well-being of every 
American, how to secure the economic well-being of the American public. 
It can be done.
  There are essentially six elements to achieve economic security and 
economic growth and strength, and we will cover many of those today as 
we talk about this issue. Let me very briefly lay them out to you.
  The first is education. I think we now understand that an individual 
who has little or no education has very little opportunity to find 
economic security. It's difficult to get a job if you don't have an 
education. So for an individual, a good education is essential. 
Unfortunately across America, report after report, usually every 6 or 7 
years a new report comes out and says America at Risk. Our education 
system isn't measuring up. Yet here in the last 3 months and in the 
days ahead, my colleagues on the Republican side have consistently cut 
the education programs that many, indeed millions of Americans depend 
upon.
  Back home in my State of California, education funding is similarly 
cut, so that now a class that 5 years ago was 20 students is now 30 
students. At the University of California, 10 years ago it may have 
cost $1,500 or $2,000 to go to school to pay the tuition. Now it's 
$8,000. And in the budget that's being proposed that was presented to 
the Appropriations Committee today, the Republicans are virtually 
reducing to a point of nonexistence Pell Grants necessary for higher 
education.
  So education becomes the first key pillar in building a secure 
economy for an individual. Similarly, it is the pillar to secure a good 
growing economy for this Nation, because this Nation will not be able 
to compete economically unless we have the best educated workforce in 
the world, and we're not even close today. We were in bygone years, 30, 
40 years ago, and we can be in the future, but it's going to take a 
change. As my colleagues come and join me during this hour, we will be 
talking about the ways in which the education system can be improved 
and the way in which we can transition people from education to work 
and back to education and back to work.
  The second pillar is research. Research is an essential element, 
because from that research comes the new products of the future. I 
think we only need to think about the things that are in our home. The 
television, the VCR, the other things that we depend upon, were mostly 
invented in America. The fundamental research for computer chips and 
the like, America made, and much of the technology that we now find in 
our green technology, a lot of the wind turbines, the initial wind 
turbine industry, the solar industry, the photovoltaic and the rest, 
research in America's great institutions, our universities, our 
laboratories, led to these kinds of products. The battery technology 
that we now find in the hybrids, invented in America, but I think most 
of you would say, but not made in America today. That's true. So what 
we have seen is that the research, while done in the United States, did 
not lead to those things being manufactured in the United States. We 
need to understand why, and we'll go into that today, also.
  So education, research, and then the third element is making those 
things in America. Manufacturing matters, and that is the core subject 
of today's discussion: Make it in America. You can educate, you can 
research, but ultimately you have to make it in America.
  Now, there are ways that we can enhance the American manufacturing 
sector, and my colleagues and I on the Democratic side have put forth a 
program that we called Make It in America, so that America can make it, 
so that American families can make it, and we know that these programs 
that we're proposing will cause that to occur.

                              {time}  1630

  The remaining three things that we will talk about, not today, but I 
want to make sure we lay them out there: Education, research, 
manufacturing, make it in America, the next element is infrastructure. 
You have to have roads and streets and sanitation and water systems, 
communications systems. All of those things are critically important. 
Fortunately, part of the stimulus program, not enough of it, but a big 
part of it was to build the infrastructure. The largest surge in 
infrastructure investment ever in the history of this Nation was the 
stimulus program, overlooked and certainly overlooked in the politics 
of last year's election, but it was there. It was a good point, but we 
have to carry that forward.
  Fifth point. We have to be international. Unfortunately, the word 
``international'' in America has come to be that we give it all away. 
The trade agreements of the past often led to the outsourcing of 
American jobs, and so, as we look to the future, we want to make sure 
that as we look international we talk about, as President Obama has 
suggested, that we once again become an export Nation. We can do that. 
There are programs that will cause that to happen, and also, we need to 
be quite sure that when we talk about international we talk about fair 
trade, trade that is fair to American workers.

[[Page 7230]]

  And so as these trade programs come before us, we will be taking a 
very hard look at are those programs good for American workers, or are 
they simply good for Chinese workers. If they are good for those 
workers overseas and not good for American workers, you can see strong 
resistance from those of us on the Democratic side who say, wait a 
minute, international is good. We understand the need to grow markets. 
We understand the growing markets of the world, but we will no longer 
allow American workers to be put at a disadvantage by some trade 
agreement that is not fair to American workers.
  The final element is this: we have to change. We cannot be what we 
were yesterday. We have to be what we can be tomorrow, and our 
President very clearly points this out as he talks about capturing the 
future. We can but only if we do these six things, and the final one is 
change.
  Let me go now to a couple of the specific elements that we need to 
talk about here. Sometimes it's helpful to put up one of these 
placards. It helps focus at least my attention and perhaps yours. This 
is the Make It in America Agenda. These issues we've talked about, 
trade, tax policy, energy policy. Let's pick up the energy policy here.
  It is incumbent upon America to secure its energy future. I think all 
of us go to the gas station from time to time, all too often it seems 
to me, and you know now we're filling up with $4 a barrel oil. Why? Why 
did that happen? Well, it basically has happened because for more than 
30 years America has talked about energy security. We've talked about 
ending the importation of oil. We've talked about how we can provide 
the energy necessary for this Nation. Yet, we now find ourselves in a 
situation very similar to what we found in the 1970s, that is, 
insufficient energy available to us. The ``Drill, baby, drill'' 
mentality that we saw on the floor today is not the solution to this.
  The solution to the energy issue is to transform our energy systems 
from the 19th and 20th century energy system, the fossil fuels, where 
we are dependent upon the petrol dictators of the world, and on coal, 
which I think all of us have come to understand presents enormous 
challenges for us, challenges of climate change, challenges of 
despoiling the surface of the Earth as we now find in the Appalachian 
Mountains and enormous health risks that come with the burning of coal. 
We need to move away from these fossil fuels to the fuels of tomorrow.
  As we do that, we need to use our tax dollars to accomplish this 
goal. Right now, our tax dollars are used to support the oil industry. 
The oil industry thinks that is all well and good, but how many of you 
want to have $4 billion, $5 billion, $6 billion, even $12 billion of 
your tax money go to the wealthiest, most successful industry in the 
world as a subsidy? This is oil welfare, plain and simple, to the 
industry that simply does not need it. We're talking about the 
wealthiest, most successful industries in the world that have, for a 
century, for a full century, enjoyed the generosity of the American 
taxpayer. They receive welfare. Plain and simple, it's a subsidy, to 
subsidize the oil industry.
  Yet we know in the last few days the Big Five oil companies have 
produced record profits in the last quarter. So much so that in the 
last decade, the decade 2001 until 2010, the oil industry has had over 
$1 trillion of profit, $1 trillion dollar of profit. At the same time, 
they have received billions of dollars of subsidies. We need to bring 
those subsidies back into the Treasury. Tell the oil industry, for a 
century you have been living off the welfare of the American public 
taxpayer. No more. That money is coming home.
  And we're going to use it for two purposes: one, to reduce the 
deficit. President Obama has suggested about $4 billion a year. I think 
you can go as high as $12 billion if you add up all of the subsidies, 
bringing that money back into the Treasury to be used to reduce the 
deficit and to support industries of the future. We're talking about a 
lot of money here. Take a look at this.
  ExxonMobil, $10.7 billion of profit in just the last quarter. 
Oxychem, $1.6 billion. Conoco, $2.1 billion. Oh, you're going to love 
this. The CEO of Conoco oil a couple of days ago got in front of a 
microphone and said it is un-American to take away our welfare, to take 
away our subsidy. I don't think so. I think it is un-American to give 
the wealthiest industry in the world a subsidy. We can go on and on 
here. We see Chevron doing very well. Oh, yeah, BP--we know that bunch. 
They're the ones that didn't have enough money to safely drill for oil, 
but they did manage to make $7.2 billion of profit this last year.
  So, as we look at the energy systems of this Nation, we need to 
understand that the money that you and I are presently giving to the 
oil companies as a subsidy needs to be brought back and used to reduce 
the deficit and to support the energy systems of the future.
  I'm going to wrap this very quickly with 2 pieces of legislation that 
I've introduced that would take those subsidies back from the oil 
industry and apply them to tomorrow's energy systems, the green energy 
systems, solar, wind. Our tax money should be used to buy American made 
solar, wind, turbines, and other green technologies. Right now, our tax 
money, we do subsidize those industries. Our tax money is used to 
purchase products that are manufactured offshore. My legislation says, 
good, we need to subsidize. We need to promote those industries. Those 
are the industries of the future. Those are energy sources of the 
future. Let's use that money to buy American-made equipment.
  If somebody wants to go buy Chinese solar cells, fine, use your own 
money. One of these companies wants to go buy European-made wind 
turbine, that is fine, do it. But don't use my tax money. Don't use 
your tax money. American tax money must be used to buy American-made 
equipment.
  Similarly, with our gasoline taxes that are now being used to buy 
buses, trains, and build highways and bridges, great. Good thing to do, 
but make sure that those things are made in America.

                              {time}  1640

  Now let me turn my attention to my colleagues. Three of them have 
joined us. I notice that our minority whip has joined us today.
  Mr. Hoyer, you've been the advocate, the leader, of developing the 
Make It in America strategy. Please share with us your thoughts, and 
then I'm going to turn to my other two colleagues.
  Mr. HOYER. I'll be very brief.
  I thank the gentleman for his continuing focus. If I am the coiner of 
the phrase and the focuser of Make It in America, you are its chief 
spokesperson and salesperson, so I thank you for that effort.
  It's so important because, clearly, Americans are rightfully very 
concerned at the fact that we don't have enough jobs for the people who 
are looking for jobs. We've got to have a growth agenda in America. 
We've got to have an agenda in America that focuses on expanding 
opportunities. We've got to have an agenda that gives to Americans the 
sense that they and their families and their children can make it in 
America.
  You have been focusing night after night, week after week, month 
after month on a jobs agenda, which we call ``Make It in America.'' 
We've introduced over 25 bills that are focused on trying to help us 
focus on that agenda, on trying to help business--small, medium and 
large--expand their businesses and on trying to give them assistance in 
doing so.
  I want to say to the gentleman that, in his continuing to focus on 
this jobs agenda, it is critically important that Americans understand 
what the Make It in America agenda is all about so they can contact 
their Members of Congress and Members of the United States Senate and 
say, Look, we support the Make It in America agenda. We believe that 
it's an agenda for our opportunities and our children's opportunities.
  I want to say something about the statement, to which the gentleman 
referred, made by the president of Conoco, a statement that apparently 
indicates he believes that his company is entitled to a tax preference 
and that if

[[Page 7231]]

we did not give that tax preference that somehow it would be un-
American. Of course, life, as I like to say, is a series of trade-offs: 
if we're buying things; national defense; defeating terrorism; making 
sure our seniors are secure in their pocketbooks and in their health; 
making sure that we participate in helping young people, particularly 
disadvantaged young people, get the educational start that they need; 
making sure that our college students can develop their talents so they 
can make us a more competitive Nation; and that the innovation, an 
innovation to which the gentleman referred earlier, will still be done 
in the United States. Then we need to make sure that the products and 
technologies that are developed through that enterprise are, in fact, 
then subject to a Make It in America reality.
  As for the gentleman from Conoco, I don't know him, but I applaud the 
oil companies, and we need the energy that they give us. The fact of 
the matter is we gave subsidies, and we give subsidies in various 
areas, as the gentleman from California knows, to encourage doing 
things that are not now profitable but that will have a long-term 
payoff for not only the companies but for America. That is why the 
government invests its money, as governments all over the world do, in 
developing emerging technologies. The gentleman spoke, of course, of 
solar, wind and other renewable technologies that will have a 
tremendous payoff but not in the short term; therefore it's hard to get 
investors to put money in. That's why governments, not just in this 
country but all over the world, have done this in the past: for 
instance, when the prices of gasoline were not such that they provided 
the resources to encourage research, which we knew we needed, and 
drilling, which we knew we needed.
  Yet now, when you have the profits of the product, I am shocked, 
frankly, that those who promote the free market system, which ought to 
be driven by the markets, driven by demand, driven by profits, would 
now say, notwithstanding the fact that oil profits among the Big Five, 
in particular, are up to historic levels, that we should still continue 
to ask our taxpayers to subsidize them even further. That seems to me 
to make no sense.
  But back to the principal focus of making it in America: The 
gentleman has been so right in his focus of making sure that we create 
the kind of environment in this country that will empower people to 
make things in America, to grow things in America, to sell them here, 
but also to sell them around the world. The President has indicated he 
wants to double exports. The only way we're going to double exports is 
if we make things in America to sell overseas. That's the only way you 
can get exports whether they be goods, frankly, or services. We ought 
not to preclude the growth of the service sector in our economy 
servicing overseas, whatever that service agency might be.
  So I want to thank the gentleman for continuing to keep the focus on 
an agenda that, I hope, our Republican colleagues will embrace as well. 
This is not a partisan agenda. I don't think there is a Member of this 
Congress who doesn't want to grow the economy and create jobs. We 
believe that the Make It in America agenda is focused on doing just 
that, and I would encourage our Republican colleagues, our Democratic 
colleagues, our brethren in the Senate to join together to pass this 
Make It in America agenda so we can see a resurgence of the 
manufacturing might of this great country that when we continue to be 
the inventing, innovative, developing center of the world's economy 
that we also, once we've done all that, then bring it to scale, or make 
it in America.
  Andy Grove of Intel, as you know, has observed that if, in fact, what 
we continue to do is do the voltaic cells, do the chips, do the other 
technologies and if we then take the products to scale overseas, 
inevitably, Andy Grove believes--and I share this view--that our 
inventors, innovators and developers, themselves, will go overseas. The 
American public, by large numbers, understands that that's not a policy 
that is defensible or profitable for them, for their families or for 
America in the long term.
  So I thank the gentleman from California for his focus, for his 
tenacity and for his compelling advocacy of the Make It in America 
agenda.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much, Mr. Leader, for what you've 
done. Mr. Hoyer, you've been on this, actually, longer than I. You have 
some history in this House that goes way back. I think about a program 
that you and the Democrats put forward before I arrived. I've only been 
here now about 20 months. It was the stimulus bill, the American 
Recovery Act.
  In that Recovery Act, there was about $12 billion for transportation. 
In that transportation program, you and the Democrats, signed by 
President Obama, said that the money had to be spent--and this was the 
high-speed rail program--on American-made high-speed rail.
  Guess what happened?
  Of the high-speed rail companies of the world--none were made in 
America--the Japanese, the Chinese, the Germans, the French, and the 
Spanish all began to find American manufacturing plants because they 
wanted access to the high-speed rail money that was in the stimulus 
bill.
  The point here is that, if we use our tax money wisely and say to the 
world ``come and build a high-speed rail, but you're going to make it 
in America,'' they will establish those manufacturing plants here in 
America. It's already happening. In Sacramento, Siemens, and in New 
York, a couple of the European companies are already locating those 
manufacturing plants.
  Sheila Jackson Lee, from the great State of Texas, has now joined us, 
and she has been on this issue for a long time.
  So, if you would, share with us your thoughts on how America can make 
it by making it in America.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from California.
  If it were allowed on the floor, I would say, ``Yippee,'' but I will 
try to adhere to protocol or take a lariat and circle it around out of 
excitement.

                              {time}  1650

  Thank you very much for the years of tenure and leadership that you 
brought from the legislature in the State of California. You brought it 
here with a sense of action, and we thank you. I am delighted that our 
Democratic whip has been at the forefront of this issue. And the 
gentleman from Rhode Island--I know others may be coming--is a mayor, a 
former mayor who understands the importance of jobs.
  Let me just say, to add to your comment, both President Clinton and 
President Reagan have quotes that suggest that if you build 
infrastructure, it is an investment that will continue to give and give 
and give. Since 
9/11, my good friend, I have been on the Homeland Security Committee, 
and the attention of the United States, rightly so, has been on 
securing the homeland and national security. And just one moment so I 
can transfer into this discussion, 70 percent of the American people 
now with the capture and demise of Osama bin Laden still are concerned 
about our security but, in actuality, believe that our troops can come 
home completely. I hope that we can move in that direction. This is not 
a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. Seventy percent of the 
American people frankly believe our troops have done an enormous 
tribute to themselves and to the American people.
  What does that mean? It means bright young men and women are going to 
be coming home. And let it be known that they will not just come home 
in need of health services. They will come home eager to participate in 
the American Dream. And, frankly, I want to make sure they can do that, 
and I want to make sure we end the war in Afghanistan.
  But I believe we have, as you have mentioned, the tools of the trade. 
I see this word ``trade,'' and some of us get a little nervous about 
that. But let me tell you how I explain trade. I want every item that 
can be sold overseas to someone else from the United States to be sold. 
I have taken to inventorying

[[Page 7232]]

the manufacturers in the 18th Congressional District in Texas. And if I 
might, if you are listening, call (713) 655-0050 and let our office 
know you exist, that you make something in the 18th Congressional 
District in Texas. And I would venture to say that my colleagues will 
tell you call them or get on their Web site, because we want you to be 
able to sell it overseas.
  Make It in America is to recognize the validity of the product you 
have made. We want to make sure that there are taxes that are fair to 
manufacturers. I am in the Manufacturing Caucus. We want to generate 
it. Energy means all kinds of energy, and I will dwell on that very 
lightly. But I am a person who is an equal opportunity welcomer of 
solar and biofuels and a number of other energy types to join in 
energy.
  Labor, I have already said to you, I am trying to bring our soldiers 
home. But there are young people graduating from college in 2011. They 
were at my town hall meeting, to my distinguished friend, and they 
asked me about work. And I said to them that we in this Congress are 
working to provide jobs for the talented young people that will walk 
across those various stadiums and auditoriums getting their diplomas, 
doing what we asked them to do. Can we put them to work?
  And then, of course, if you reinvest in America, I will tell the 
State of Texas--I don't want to get into anyone else's business--that 
we don't have to close schools. We don't have to lay off teachers. We 
can educate the workforce. And some of the workforce can be those with 
their hands, vocational trades, learning to manufacture, building the 
high-speed rails that I am so excited about that I am trying to find 
some land in the 18th Congressional District or somewhere in Texas and 
say, Come one, come all.
  By the way, I serve on the Intellectual Property Committee on 
Judiciary, and every time I have a hearing in that committee, I say 
that this is the work of the 21st century, protecting the genius of 
America, and it's a lot of them. It's unbelievable the inventors who 
are here. I want them to know that there is some value of first to file 
to protect their product.
  And lastly, what you have been talking about, the idea of redoing our 
infrastructure. A good friend of ours who served as the chairman of the 
Transportation Committee was such a leader, a distinguished gentleman 
from Minnesota. He, in the course of his service in the last couple of 
years, had a bridge collapse in that State. He kept saying over and 
over again, Build infrastructure and you'll put America to work.
  I wanted to capture these words as a mandate, as an instructive 
vision that the Democrats have captured. And the only thing we need are 
partners. The President has already shown his proudness and his ability 
to put dollars to make jobs and to build infrastructure. I have seen 
public housing go up. I have seen roads being improved, dams, bridges, 
and of course, light rail and high-speed rail. So we've got the right 
thinking.
  And I don't want to stop without just adding this point: There's not 
one of us that does not have the consciousness and the sense to 
recognize that we must have responsible spending and responsible 
reduction. I take great offense to anyone who suggests that I am 
opening the treasure chest and throwing money to the wind. I believe 
that education is valuable. Infrastructure is valuable. But there are 
ways that we can reasonably, down the road, as Mark Zandi has said, 
begin our belt tightening. But we have to recognize that the debt 
ceiling is not for the State of Texas or California--it is to help this 
Nation--but we do it sensibly. I hope we can do a clean one, by the 
way. But the point is that Make It in America is an engine of job 
creation.
  And I just want to thank the gentlemen for constantly bringing us to 
the floor, giving us the opportunity, of course, to do as the Boy 
Scouts may have done and to recite these words: Trade, taxes, energy, 
labor, education, intellectual property, and infrastructure, and go 
around to our constituents in telling them we are not going to forget 
you. And I believe that we're going to create some jobs and watch 
America continue to have its economy not only make baby steps, but it's 
going to be spinning. It's going to be humming, and people are going to 
be back to work. I am grateful for this philosophy and this mission.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you so very much, Ms. Jackson Lee. You have 
been a leader in all of these issues over these many, many years and 
speak wisely and legislate very wisely on that.
  The tax issue out there is one that just always befuddles me. It 
befuddles me as to why my colleagues on the Republican side just don't 
seem to get the message. We passed a tax bill last year that ended the 
subsidy that international, multinational companies were given to off-
shore jobs. $12 billion a year of our tax money was given to these huge 
American companies when they off-shored jobs. What was that all about? 
I still haven't found out where that law came from. But it was in the 
Tax Code, and American companies were taking advantage of that tax 
reduction, tax subsidy, corporate welfare to send jobs overseas. We 
passed a bill. It's over. The President signed it. Not one of my 
Republican colleagues voted for that. I don't understand. I'm befuddled 
by their lack of support for American companies who want to keep jobs 
here. Apparently they're willing to support American companies that 
want to send jobs offshore. Anyway, one small example.
  I wonder what it's like to be the mayor of the largest town in Rhode 
Island. It was probably an enormous experience. And then to bring that 
experience here to the floor of the Congress and to the committees and 
to share with us all of that down-home, on-the-ground experience of 
bringing jobs to the community.
  Mr. Cicilline, if you would care to share with us some of that 
experience in the legislation that you've brought to us.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman from California for his 
leadership on Making It in America, and I certainly thank our leader, 
Mr. Hoyer, for making this a priority.
  I think we all realize the single biggest responsibility that we have 
is to get the American people back to work. I know in my home State, 
families are hurting. With one of the highest unemployment rates in the 
country, our single greatest responsibility is to do everything we can 
to get people back to work. And I've been disappointed that we've been 
here for 5 months and there hasn't really been, from our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, a jobs agenda, jobs legislation. And I'm 
really pleased that we on the Democratic side have put forth a very 
ambitious but very important agenda of Making It in America.

                              {time}  1700

  When you think about it, we've had an economy that was built on 
bubbles and credit swaps and all kinds of things, and they all failed 
and they hurt families in this country very, very badly.
  I think what we need to do is return to this idea of making things 
again in this country that we can sell all over the world, and having 
policies developed at the national level, at the State level, at the 
local level that support manufacturing, that give American 
manufacturers the ability to compete in the global marketplace, give 
them an ability to grow jobs, and to create opportunities to make 
things that we can sell to the rest of the world so we can export 
American-made goods, not export American jobs.
  We have the best workers, the best minds, we have the best innovators 
in the world, and what we need is to have policies at the national 
level that recognize we have to make things again. We need to stop the 
Chinese from cheating in manufacturing and having an unfair advantage, 
and we need to recognize that this is an important part of rebuilding 
the economy of this country.
  We've put forth, as you know, Mr. Garamendi, with your leadership, a 
whole agenda, a whole set of bills that will help jump-start and 
support what's already happening in American manufacturing.
  Try to go into a store and find something with those three words: 
Made in

[[Page 7233]]

America. It's almost impossible. We can change that. We have to change 
it. And the agenda that we've put forth will help to do that.
  The bill that I am lead sponsor on is the Make It in America Block 
Grant. It's a simple idea: take resources and invest them in American 
manufacturing. Help manufacturers retrofit their buildings for more 
energy efficiency, retrain workers for the new equipment of the 21st 
century. Buy new equipment, increase their exports. The kinds of tools 
that we know, that I hear from manufacturers when I travel throughout 
my district and talk to them and listen to them, what they need to give 
them a chance to compete in this global marketplace.
  We have responsibilities to do that. It's the best way we can grow 
jobs. You're absolutely right. It's unimaginable that tens of billions 
of dollars in subsidies are being given to big oil companies, corporate 
welfare at a time when our constituents are facing some of the highest 
gas prices ever.
  The short-term strategy is we have to pass anti-gouging legislation, 
we have to release some of the strategic reserves that will lower the 
price at the pump now, and we have to invest in a long-term strategy of 
clean energy, renewable energy, the kinds of investments in the 
manufacturing area particularly that will lead to a good energy future 
for our country.
  I thank you, Mr. Garamendi, for your leadership. This is an important 
agenda. It's not just about job creation. It's about regaining that 
position as the leaders of the world of manufacturing.
  Rhode Island led the Industrial Revolution. We have a long history of 
innovation, of manufacturing. This country can lead again in this area, 
but we need to have policies that support the great minds that are 
doing this work, the great manufacturing. We need to have job training 
that gives people the skills necessary to take these jobs, and we need 
to make it a national priority so that we can start making things here 
again, and so that American families can make it in America by relying 
on manufacturing.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Cicilline. And we note that 
your part of the Nation was where the manufacturing started in America, 
and the rivers, taking the power of the rivers and using it to start 
the mills and eventually creating the early American economy and 
continuing on to this day in a very special part of this Nation, the 
Rhode Island and the New England area.
  There are many, many things to say. As you were talking, Mr. 
Cicilline, and bringing us up to date on how we can do these things, I 
notice that two of my colleagues came in to join us.
  Again, Mr. Tonko, you were here for the very first Make It in America 
discussion, you and I, on this floor some months ago talking about what 
we can do in this rebuilding the great American manufacturing base, the 
strength of America, the incredible innovation that's possible, and you 
just happen to come from one of those areas where it was done and it's 
still being done.
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You're from New York, right? The Albany area, upstate 
New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely, Representative.
  Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for bringing us together in what 
is this usual important discussion. You have done that time and time 
again for us to focus on an innovation economy, on building it, and 
making it in America is an important aspect of the work we do. Thank 
you for bringing that to the attention of the greater public that 
watches these proceedings.
  I do represent this region in upstate New York where we have the 
confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers, and it was birth to the 
Erie Canal, and that birth to the Erie Canal developed a port called 
New York, which became a major metro area, and a necklace of 
communities that were given birth to by that canal movement that became 
epicenters of invention and innovation, that then inspired a westward 
movement, and not only inspired the growth of this great Nation, but 
impacted the quality of life of people throughout the globe.
  That pioneer spirit should speak to us again as we develop budgets, 
as we promote public policy. It should be about investing, not dis-
investing. It should be about funding, not defunding.
  The current climate here in this House with the new majority is to 
defund, to take those dollars away from economic recovery and to shift 
them over to tax cuts for millionaires, tax cuts for billionaires, 
ending Medicare, block granting Medicaid, dis-investing, providing for 
corporate loopholes.
  This is not the strategy that America needs. This attack on middle 
class America is unwarranted. It is not going to resolve what we need 
to resolve here in the great United States of America.
  We need to invest in a way that allows us to bulk up and compete and 
compete effectively on the global scene so that we can drive this clean 
energy economy, this innovation economy.
  I know from my work prior to coming here to the House of 
Representatives, with NYSERDA, the New York State Energy, Research and 
Development Authority, there is job opportunity galore. There are 
entrepreneurs, there are innovators that work with the Angel Network, 
work with venture capitalists, and work with public funding like that 
from the Federal Government that enable us to take ideas and move them 
along. Where R&D is, where research and development lands, so will 
manufacturing. That's what we have within our grasp, but what I see 
happening is walking away from that progressive approach and catering 
to a crowd that has grown stronger and stronger through this recession.
  When we look at some of the outcomes as the majority here challenges 
us about not doing the mindless handouts to oil companies, we're seeing 
some of the CEOs garnering some quarter of a million shares, prime 
shares of stock. That's what they're doing with these payments, these 
handouts to the oil companies, when we could invest that in job 
creation, and that's what this Make It in America is all about.
  I know when we put those down payments on invention and innovation, 
we can expect lucrative dividends and we can have job growth, and the 
kind of job growth that is secure because it stakes itself in the 
community as small business and they grow within the community; they 
grow and expand their opportunity.
  I have, within the capital region of New York, the third fastest 
growing hub for science and tech jobs, and that's happening because of 
investment from the public sector, partnered with private sector 
investments, and it works. It's a winning formula, and I would say that 
we just need to pursue in that fashion and we can gain tremendously. 
And why would you change that slow but steady growth upward in recovery 
from the recession? After 8.2 million jobs lost through the Bush 
recession, why would you turn that around? And that's the attempt right 
here. Stop it, turn it around and go back into the ditch that drove 
this recession.
  I just think we don't want to repeat that recent history of 
Reaganomics and the second Bush Presidency. It is devastating to the 
economy. It's devastating to America's working families, middle class. 
It's devastating to job growth.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko.
  You started with the Erie Canal. It's interesting to note that at 
that period of time, which was the last decades of the 1700s and the 
early 1800s, the United States Government set out on a course to build 
infrastructure, and the infrastructure was the canal systems at that 
time, and you so quickly and correctly pointed out the growth that came 
from that. That lesson, now more than 200 years old, needs to be 
repeated in America once again.
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. I think what people will say too is, well, we 
don't make those products anymore in America. Well, we might be able to 
if we modernize our manufacturing processes.
  But also, if you're going to try and convince, if we try to convince 
each

[[Page 7234]]

other that all the products that America can make, design, engineer, 
discover and manufacture are over, what are we telling ourselves?
  There are products coming out as we speak. There are products coming 
out every week, and a sophisticated society braces itself to invest in 
education, in R&D, in the down payments of taking ideas and moving them 
along; and we can then manufacture those latest products on the scene. 
That's the growth of a sophisticated society.

                              {time}  1710

  So this can-do spirit prevails in the Democratic Caucus in this great 
House in which we serve. I am proud to serve with these Members who are 
visionary, who are supportive, reinforcing the efforts of manufacturing 
of a newest kind here in the country.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You talk about innovation and new things.
  Last week, I was out in my district talking to manufacturers. One 
company is called Bridgelux--``lux'' I think is light, bridge lighting 
to the future. They make LED lights. The kind of things that are now in 
the stores--when you get a flashlight, it's an LED flashlight. They 
have taken those LEDs to a whole new level of technology and 
advancement.
  In fact, if we would put them in these lights here in the Chamber, we 
could reduce the energy consumption by about 90 percent, which wouldn't 
be a bad thing for the taxpayers. Their particular system would allow 
those lights to change color, which might put me in a better color; 
that wouldn't be such a bad thing, and to dim when people are not here, 
and move the lights, and in that way improve our ability to see while 
simultaneously saving us a lot of energy.
  The company is 2 years old, has 250 employees, is manufacturing these 
advanced LED lighting systems in Livermore in my district, and I am 
going, ``Go Bridgelux, go!''
  They need something, though. They need access to the American 
markets. And that is where the use of our tax dollars, in this case 
perhaps the local tax dollars in the cities around that area, would 
reach out and save the taxpayers a bundle of money by buying lights 
from that company.
  Mr. TONKO. Not only is it promoting energy efficiency; it can help us 
along this trail of energy self-sufficiency, which then pulls us out of 
our dependency, which is gluttonous to date, on unfriendly nations 
providing us our supplies for energy. It just doesn't make any sense.
  The clarion call that we heard at the voting booth last fall was to 
start growing the economy, stop shrinking the middle class, and that is 
what we are about with this Make It in America.
  I know our friend, Representative Tim Ryan from Ohio, has something 
to add to that agenda because he has been aggressive on this, also.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Indeed.
  Mr. Ryan, you come from a part of the world that was and is going to 
be, given your leadership and the leadership of this Make It in America 
agenda, the premier manufacturing place in the world. We will contend 
in California; we will be happy to contend for that and compete for 
that title, but you are in the process of rebuilding the manufacturing 
base in the heartland of America.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It's interesting. My district, the Youngstown-
Warren metropolitan district, was the fastest growing in job 
development in the last month or two.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Name those places again.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Youngstown and Warren, Ohio.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We are talking about what America thinks was 
yesterday, and you are telling me it's the fastest growing?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And it is just recent. But in large part, a couple 
of different things.
  There is $1 billion invested into a steel mill, but also we have a 
major auto plant. And it was the work of the last Congress and the 
President saying we cannot lose the American auto industry, and they 
made investments in companies like General Motors. Now we have three 
shifts selling the Chevy Cruze all over the world. Every employee got a 
$4,000 bonus a few weeks back that they are spending in our community. 
These are the kinds of things that happen when you make things in 
America, when you manufacture products in the United States of America.
  But the goal here I think for all of us is to wrestle control from 
the major multinational corporations who are running this institution 
and then have undue influence over the government. Whether it is 
globalization moving manufacturing offshore, or if it is the oil 
companies who not only aren't paying taxes but are completely content 
with our citizens sending $1 billion a day out of the United States to 
go try to find cheap oil, which isn't so cheap anymore, and diminishing 
day by day, what we are saying here is, if we drive that $1 billion a 
day back into the United States economy for the kind of research and 
development that is going on in Upstate New York, that is going on in 
California, that is going on in Youngstown State University and Akron 
University with polymers, if we pump billions of dollars into this, 
instead of falling from first to second to third in the green energy 
revolution behind China and Germany, we will start leading it. And it 
is about coming up with the next technologies that you gentlemen were 
sitting here talking about, whether it's lightbulbs or something else. 
We need to discover that here in the United States, and then make it 
here in the United States.
  But what all the major tech companies are saying now, they want to 
manufacture here in the United States. There is so much risk when you 
move your operations to China, losing intellectual property, losing the 
cutting edge, losing the quality, that there is an incentive here.
  But if we don't pump money into research, that is why this whole 
philosophy that every single thing the government ever does is awful 
and the government should just serve big business, cut taxes for the 
oil companies, make sure that the big multinationals don't pay anything 
in taxes, and we will come back and cut NIH, cut energy investment, cut 
the National Science Foundation, cut the National Institutes for 
Science and Technology, their standards and technology. These are the 
kinds of things that we have got to be investing in. It starts with 
let's get out of this dependency on foreign oil, $4 a gallon is 
nonsense, and this illusion that if we continue to keep drilling, we 
are somehow going to drop the price, is an illusion. Let's take control 
of our own destiny here.
  I want to just show real quick this chart. This is the U.S. balance 
of trade from 1960 to 2010. If you will look in the last 10 to 15 
years, we now have $500 billion in a trade imbalance. Most of this is 
energy. Most of this is oil. What are we thinking? We are giving away 
the house.
  This is not good public policy. This is not good economics. Let's 
take control. Let's invest in our own people. A billion a day we send 
to another country that doesn't like us, and it finances the war on 
terrorism? And then we take our budget and have three wars going on at 
the same time. So we pay them to run the terrorist operations, and then 
we pay our own military to go to the Middle East to try to stop it. 
Meanwhile, the middle class in the United States, we have a $3 trillion 
deficit on the roads and bridges and infrastructure, sewer. College 
expenses are going up. We're not doing research. This is a recipe for 
disaster for the United States.
  I yield to my friend from California.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much for that.
  You just reminded me of last night at 2:30 in the morning, the House 
Armed Services Committee completed the markup that is moving out of 
committee, the National Defense Act. We do it every year. Seven hundred 
billion dollars.
  A study done by one of the think tanks came up with the number that 
America spends about 17 percent of its total defense budget protecting 
the flow of oil out of the Middle East. So you can add that to the 
deficit. That is over $100 billion a year that we spend

[[Page 7235]]

of our tax money to protect the flow of oil, not only for us, but for 
the rest of the world.
  We need to build a domestic energy system not based on carbon-based 
fuels, but rather the future energy, all of the clean green 
technologies, nuclear and others, that will provide us with the energy 
security we need.
  In doing so, each and every one of those, if we spend our tax dollars 
on buying American-made systems, will come back, just as you say, and 
build our communities stronger along the way.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We had a group in Cleveland, Ohio, do a study a few 
years back that, if you added in that cost, the 17 percent of our 
military budget that protects the oil lines, supply lines for oil all 
over the world, the actual cost of a gallon of gas would be another $1, 
$1.50, because of the subsidy. It's another subsidy to make oil come 
here.
  All we are saying is pump that money back into the research. Somebody 
in this country will come up with some synthetic, some magical 
something or other that will replicate diesel fuel. It will happen if 
we put the money into it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. It is actually already there. It is called advanced 
biofuels, algae-based fuels, everything from cosmetic oils to fuel for 
the Navy ships. So we can do these things. But, again, it is how we 
deploy our resources.
  We have about 5 minutes, and we are going to do a lightning round 
between the three of us. I am going to turn to Mr. Tonko.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. TONKO. I would just encourage us here in Washington on the Hill 
as we develop policy and debate budgets to keep in mind the history 
that should be replicated, sound history, history that had a proven 
track record, like that of the global race on space.
  Some of us are old enough to have been youngsters or adolescents when 
that message, that very noble vision, of President JFK and his offering 
in an inaugural address that we are going to win the race on space, the 
global race on space, and land a person first on the Moon. And it was 
more than that poetry of landing the first astronaut on the Moon, that 
happened to be an American, and his quote of ``one small step for man, 
one giant step for mankind.'' It went well beyond that. It was this 
opening of the gates to technology that then invaded every sector of 
our economy, all aspects of life. And it was that technology investment 
that grew because of the soundness of a plan that enabled us to win a 
global race.
  Now, that was done with passionate resolve and a thoughtfulness and a 
clear vision. We need to embrace that sort of American spirit, that 
pioneer spirit in this present moment and repeat good history, sound 
history, that grew our economy. I think we can do it and I believe we 
can do it, and Make It in America is the way to make it all happen.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Give him a minute of my time. He's from 
Pennsylvania. He can't help it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I look up and find another colleague here. We have 
just a few moments left.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I appreciate the gentleman from California. I come from 
a region of the country, western Pennsylvania, bordering my friend from 
Ohio, and I was listening to the debate, and I just wanted to talk 
about this same issue.
  This is the key to our recovery and our continued leadership and 
innovation in this country because, as we have seen in western 
Pennsylvania and all across this country, the American worker is going 
to compete and win on a level playing field against anybody in the 
world any day of the week. We just want to make sure that we have a tax 
policy that is in place, a trade policy that is in place, and a 
manufacturing and jobs policy that is in place that is going to allow 
the American worker that level playing field to compete and win against 
the rest of the world.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. As a great example, your colleague next to you there 
has a piece of legislation that calls for fairness in the financial 
markets, the value of the dollar versus the value of the Chinese yuan. 
Mr. Ryan, you have put it out there. You say it has to be fair. Wrap it 
for us.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is clearly currency manipulation. Here is the 
deal: Chevron, $19 million refunded from the IRS last year. They made 
$10 billion. Valero Energy, 25th largest company in America, $68 
billion in sales last year; they got a $157 million tax refund check 
subsidized by the taxpayer.
  If we are going to do this, we need shared sacrifice. We need 
everybody to contribute, especially those people making a lot of money, 
to help us reinvest. These folks are benefiting from an old-age 
industry--that we are running out of oil. It only makes sense. It went 
into the ground for 4 billion years. We pulled it out in 150 years, and 
we are burning it. Something is happening. It is an old industry and we 
are subsidizing it. We need to be Americans who invest in the next 
great technology to lead the world.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. And indeed we will. Over the weeks and months ahead, 
we are going to talk about the Make It in America agenda, the 
legislation that has been introduced by the Democratic Caucus here in 
the House of Representatives. There are about 25 pieces of legislation, 
ranging from the ones that we talked about here, using our tax money 
when we buy solar equipment, make sure it is made in America. A bus, if 
you are going to use our tax money, make sure where it is made. 
Innovation, the innovation economy, all of those things. This is 
legislation that we have, infrastructure financing and all the rest. We 
are going to talk about it piece by piece.
  I thank my colleagues for joining us. I have the sense that behind me 
we are about to be gaveled that we are out of time. I want to thank the 
American public for listening to the Make It in America agenda.

                          ____________________