[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9294-9296]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           MAKE IT IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bucshon). 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, thank you very much for this opportunity.
  We have been engaged for this last hour in a discussion about what to 
do with one of the most important parts of America's public agenda, 
which is the transportation systems of this Nation.
  We've heard a lot of back-and-forth. We actually heard that there was 
some agreement that we ought to get on with it. Indeed, we ought to get 
on with it. We ought to get a transportation bill before the American 
public, and we ought to get it to the President. Unfortunately, there 
is a gridlock and a deadlock. Behind all of the gentle rhetoric on the 
floor this evening, there are some profound differences in how we move 
forward with the transportation bill. We'll discuss some of those as we 
journey through this 1 hour or some portion of this 1 hour.
  I think I would like to start maybe more than 200 years ago. There is 
a lot of discussion that we often hear here on the floor and in the 
rhetoric across the Nation that the Founding Fathers would do it this 
way or that way, and if we only listened to the Founding Fathers most 
of our problems would be resolved. Usually, those discussions really 
speak to not doing something. It turns out that the Founding Fathers 
really did have a great deal of wisdom.

                              {time}  1850

  I came across a book written by Mr. Thom Hartmann called ``Rebooting 
the American Dream.'' And in it, in his very first chapter, he goes 
back to the Founding Fathers, and he talks about what George Washington 
and George Washington's Secretary of Treasury actually did. On the day 
he was inaugurated, Mr. Washington said that he did not want to wear a 
suit made in England. He wanted to wear something made in America. 
Well, Make It in America is one of the principal things that my 
colleagues and I on the Democratic side have been talking about for 
some time.
  So when I came across this book, I said, Wow, this is interesting. 
George Washington instructed his Secretary of Treasury, Alexander 
Hamilton, to develop a manufacturing program for the United States; and 
Alexander Hamilton did that. He didn't do it in 2,000 or 3,000 pages, 
as we might do it today. He did it in just a short, maybe 20 or 30 
pages. And he developed an 11-point plan for America's manufacturers. 
It turns out that many of those 11 points are what we have been 
proposing on the Democratic side here for our Make It in America 
agenda.
  But tonight I want to pick up one of those 11 points. And it happens 
to be the 11th of the 11 points that Alexander Hamilton presented to 
George Washington in 1790, and it was on American manufacturers. So 
point No. 11: ``Facilitating of the transportation of commodities.'' 
The language is rather ancient English, but it still speaks to the 
following:

       Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all 
     the domestic interests of a community; but they may without 
     impropriety be mentioned as having an important relation to 
     manufacturers. There is perhaps scarcely anything, which has 
     been better calculated to assist the manufacturers of Great 
     Britain, than the meliorations of the public roads of that 
     kingdom, and the great progress which has been of late made 
     in opening canals. Of the former, the United States stands 
     much in need.

  He goes on to talk about the necessity for transportation here and 
copying what had gone on in Great Britain, that is, the development of 
public roads.
  Then he says:

       The following remarks are sufficiently judicious and 
     pertinent to deserve a literal quotation: Good roads, canals, 
     and navigable rivers, by diminishing the expense of carriage, 
     put the remote parts of a country more nearly upon a level 
     with those in the neighborhood of a town. They are upon that 
     account, the greatest of all improvements.

  So here we are in Mr. Hartmann's book, ``Rebooting the American 
Dream,'' talking about what the Founding Fathers wanted to do in 1790. 
I would also point out that by 1792 nearly all of those 11 points had 
become law and laid the foundation for the great American industrial 
revolution.
  So back to ``infrastructure,'' the word we use today. We use 
infrastructure when we talk about our highways, our canals, our roads, 
and our transportation systems. There were, in fact, some public 
transportation systems at that time.
  Now, speaking specifically of roads and jobs, we often talk about 
jobs here. We need to understand that today, if we were to pass the 
Senate version of the public transportation bill, we would put 2 
million unemployed construction workers back to work this year. This 
year, 2 million would go back to work if we were to take up the Senate 
bill. Unfortunately, we have been in a gridlock, and there has been no 
effort to compromise.
  My colleagues on the Republican side are demanding fundamental 
changes in the transportation systems and the way in which we apportion 
that money. Those changes have not been acceptable to the Senate; and, 
indeed, those changes were not acceptable to even their own caucus. The 
Republican Caucus was unable to reach agreement--they have more than 
enough votes to pass a bill out of this House--but they could not reach 
agreement among themselves, let alone with the Senate. And yet they are 
demanding that the Senate take up what they could not agree to.
  On our side, we have simply said, let's go with the Senate bill. 
After all, 74 Senators--both Democrats and Republicans--voted for it, 
leaving some 26 that chose not to support it.
  So 2 million Americans are waiting for action by the House of 
Representatives and the Senate; 2 million Americans want to go to work. 
And yet we have this deadlock. We just found some support amongst 
ourselves to tell the conferees, Get it done by the end of this week or 
take up the Senate bill.
  Listening carefully to what we heard on the floor not more than an 
hour ago, compromise is not going to be found. Keystone pipeline. No 
public transportation funding. Eliminate the environmental protections 
that have been in place for more than 40 years. Streamline, meaning 
``eliminate'' programs. So compromise is not there.
  What has happened over the last several months? Well, while our 
Republican colleagues have been trying to get their own act together, 
here is what's happened to employment in the construction industry: way 
back in January, some 5,570,000 Americans were working in the highway 
construction and public transportation and construction sector. In May, 
that number had fallen to 5,510,000. Some 60,000 Americans lost their 
jobs while the Republicans were trying to figure out how

[[Page 9295]]

they could come to an agreement with themselves on a transportation 
bill. They couldn't. So 60,000 Americans, 60,000 families lost their 
ability to earn a living as the majority in this House failed to even 
agree amongst themselves on what to do.
  The Senate moved forward with a bill. It's been there nearly 2 
months, before this House, available. A conference committee was 
formed, and gridlock continues. So now there are 60,000 families 
without an income as a result of the gridlock and the inability of our 
colleagues to come to an agreement.
  It's time for us to move on. It's time for us to put a 2-year bill in 
place, as the Senate has proposed, one that would put 2 million 
Americans back to work immediately. States could move forward. States 
would know that over the next 2 years, there would be funding from the 
Federal Government. Right now, the word from my friends on the other 
side of the aisle is, Well, we're going to go with the 60-day 
extension. States cannot work with that. They don't know what would be 
available at the end of the 60 days. They don't know what's available 
today because we're up against a deadline.
  It's time for us to move with the Senate bill. It's time for us to 
end this continuing decline. This is May. If we were to take the June 
figures--which are now, unfortunately, coming forward--more and more 
construction workers have lost their jobs. They are in my district.
  Contractors in my district are saying, There is no further contract 
available to us. We won't be able to put our people to work. We don't 
have a contract. The States can't offer new contracts. So it won't be 
just 60,000. At the end of June, it will probably be 70,000 or 75,000, 
or perhaps more, that have lost their jobs as this gridlock continues 
here in the House of Representatives. We can do better.

                              {time}  1900

  How important is this to the economy? It's very important to the 
economy and not just the construction workers, not just their families, 
the 2 million that could go to work if we accepted the Senate bill. And 
it's a good bill. It provides adequate funding for transportation, for 
repairing the bridges that we heard so much discussion of, for paving 
the roads that we heard so much discussion of just less than an hour 
ago, of providing the money for the public transportation sector so 
that the buses, the trains, the planes can continue to operate. It's a 
good bill, but not perfect, not as large as many would want. It doesn't 
have the Keystone pipeline in it. It doesn't eviscerate the 
environmental protections that are necessary as we build these 
projects.
  So what would happen if we were to accept the Senate bill? End the 
gridlock, put 2 million American workers back to work, end the decline. 
For every dollar we invest in infrastructure--that's the highway bill 
and the transportation bill--$1.57 is pumped into the American economy. 
That comes from Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody Analytics. Spend 
a dollar on transportation and you increase the GDP; you increase the 
economic activity of this Nation by $1.57.
  So there's more than just transportation at stake here. What is at 
stake here, as we see, is the continuing decline of the transportation 
and construction sector as a result of the gridlock that's been with us 
nearly this entire year. What is at stake is the growth of the American 
economy. It's the grocery store that will have a customer coming in and 
not spending an unemployment check but, rather, spending a check that's 
given to them by the contractor. And that money circulates in the 
economy so that the hair dresser, the barber, maybe even the gun shop 
owner will see their business increase 57 percent. For every dollar 
spent, $1.57 is generated in the economy, putting other people to work 
beyond the construction industry.
  Now, there's more to it than that. One of the provisions that we 
would like to see in the bill, which actually is in the Senate bill, is 
a tightening of the waivers that have been so injurious to the American 
economy, the waivers that have been overused in the last two decades, 
waivers that push aside the Buy America provisions that we presently 
have in the law, push those aside and say, We don't care whether that 
money is spent on American-made equipment. We don't care whether that 
money is spent on jobs in America. Just pushing aside the Buy America 
provisions.
  The Senate bill has a very important provision that will create even 
more jobs in America because it tightens up the waiver provisions and 
says to the Department of Transportation, no, you cannot just willy-
nilly provide a waiver. You must adhere to the law that says Buy 
America: a 60 percent minimum American content in the steel in the 
bridge that's going to be repaired, in the asphalt and concrete that's 
going to be laid over the roads. Minimum of 60 percent content on the 
buses and the trains that are going to be paid for with your tax 
dollars.
  What that means is: Make It in America. That provision that is in the 
Senate bill will enhance American manufacturing by limiting the waivers 
that have been so numerous over the last two decades as to hollow out 
the American manufacturing sector. Manufacturing matters. This is the 
American middle class. The construction industry and the manufacturing 
industry is the heart and the soul and the foundation of America's 
middle class. And so in the Senate bill it tightens up the waiver 
provisions and says that Americans will have the jobs, not some foreign 
employee of a company that has gained the contract.
  I want to give you a specific example. In California, the largest 
public works project ever is the reconstruction and the rebuilding of 
the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, a new bridge, billions of 
dollars. The steel in that bridge was made in China. Six thousand jobs 
in China, no jobs in America. It's said to be 10 percent cheaper. It 
turned out that at the outset, the Chinese steel manufacturers could 
not produce the steel. But they got the contract and what they did was 
to figure out how to produce the steel. They built a new steel mill. 
Six thousand jobs. In America, no. In China, yes.
  It turned out that the steel was not 10 percent cheaper. It was 
shoddy. The welds were not adequate. They had to go back. Delays 
occurred. It turned out to be even more expensive. Had that occurred in 
America, that new steel mill would have been built in America, and it 
would be there for the next contract, the next bridge to be built in 
America, or around the world. But, oh, no, we're going to save 10 
percent. We lost American jobs.
  If the Senate bill were to come to this floor and become law, the 
waiver that was allowed and given to the State of California, a waiver 
that allowed the Chinese steel company to have the contract, would not 
have been allowed. Six thousand jobs would have been in America, and we 
would once again make it in America and Americans would make it. But, 
oh, no, it didn't happen. Manufacturing matters.
  I would like to see another provision in the bill, but I won't demand 
this and my Democratic colleagues who support this are not going to 
demand it because we want to get on with providing those 2 million jobs 
for American workers in the construction industry. But let me take a 
moment to explain what it is.
  This is a bill that I introduced at the beginning of last year. It's 
H.R. 613. And what it says is that our tax money, the money that is 
being spent by every American when they buy a gallon of gasoline or a 
gallon of diesel, that that money goes into the highway trust fund. And 
H.R. 613 says it must be spent on American-made equipment. Highways. 
This is the steel that's in the bridges. This is the rebar that's in 
the roads. This is the concrete, the asphalt--American made.
  If you want to build a high-speed rail, as we do in California, then 
that high-speed rail is going to be financed with your tax dollars, and 
it will be an American-made high-speed rail train. You want a train? 
You want to improve your transit system? It will be American made. Is 
it possible? Does this work? Let me give you have an example.
  In the American Recovery Act, sometimes known as the stimulus bill, 
there

[[Page 9296]]

is a provision for Amtrak trains. Upgrade the Amtrak system. I think it 
was a little over $12 billion. Some wise staffer wrote next to that $12 
billion a sentence that said: This money must be spent on American-made 
equipment.
  One hundred percent American-made equipment. Oh, you can't do that. 
Well, it turns out that you can do that. A German company, one of the 
largest industrial companies in the world, looked at it and said, $12 
billion? We can build it in America. And they did. They built a 
manufacturing plant in Sacramento, California; and they are producing 
100 percent American-made locomotives because the law said that it must 
be done.
  H.R. 613 says precisely that. If you want the tax money, then it must 
be American-made equipment. Use our tax dollars to create American-made 
jobs, not steel made in China, not trains made in Germany, not 
locomotives from Japan. It's our tax money. It will be spent on 
American-made equipment.
  That's what this does. And we have the proof that it can be done. 
It's being done today in Sacramento, California, by Siemens, a German 
company that built a manufacturing plant to take advantage of money 
that was available if the product was made in America.

                              {time}  1910

  Another sad example, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, BART, needs 
to replace its 40-year-old trains, $3.2 billion. The minimum in the law 
today is 60 percent. The bids went out. Two bidders were in the finals. 
One, a French company, Alsthom; another, a Canadian company, 
Bombardier. Bombardier's bid was 2-3 percent lower than Alsthom's. 
However, there was a significant difference. Bombardier said we will 
build 66 percent American content. Alsthom, the French company, said we 
can do better. A little bit higher price, but we can do better. We will 
build 95 percent American content. The difference: $1 billion in 
American jobs. Sixty-six percent/95 percent; a 2 percent, 3 percent 
difference in price.
  The BART board of directors refused to go back to a second bidding 
process that would have taken 60 or 90 days. Alsthom said we'll cut our 
price. We want these jobs in America. It turns out most would be in New 
York, not California. We want these jobs in America. Go back to another 
round of bidding, and we'll get out a sharp pencil and we'll come down. 
The BART board of directors let that opportunity for a billion dollars 
in jobs go by.
  Many of us believe that Alsthom would have matched or even 
outperformed the Bombardier bid. Or maybe Bombardier would come back 
and say, okay, we'll go to 95 percent. We don't know. We'll never know. 
But what we do know is that a billion dollars of American jobs were 
lost.
  So now, as we continue to debate and dally and let time go by, as 
American jobs, as American workers in the construction industry see the 
continued decline month by month in the number of men and women that 
are employed, as layoffs continue--between January and May, more than 
60,000 construction workers in the United States have lost their jobs 
while we continue to fight over issues here.
  But the fundamental issue is the issue of jobs. You can talk about 
the Keystone pipeline, and there are jobs there. And maybe some day 
that pipeline will be built.
  You can talk about the environmental processes that have protected 
the environment of this Nation for the last 40 years, and maybe there 
ought to be some adjustments there.
  You can talk about giving States the power which basically means 
there is no money set aside for public transportation. We can talk 
about those things. But as we wrestle back and forth on what one or 
another of us think is so critically important, every day another 
construction worker has lost their job. Another family has lost their 
opportunity to make the payment on their home. Another community has 
seen the economy in their area diminish.
  We have a reasonably good bill available to us and we could vote on 
it tomorrow. That's the Senate bill. It protects American jobs. It 
protects the public transportation system. It is fully funded, not with 
some hypothetical money that may come in some day, but rather real 
dollars. It says that our tax dollars must be spent on American-made 
equipment, on American jobs. It's a good bill.
  We had a motion to instruct here on the floor just a few moments ago. 
And as you listened to the debate, you'd think there was agreement. And 
there is agreement--we've got to get this job done. We have to put 
Americans back to work. Two million Americans await our decision. Are 
we going to continue to fight for some perceived issue that is 
important to a small group of people? Or are we going to look at the 
larger picture here, the picture of American workers, of American jobs.
  I suppose tomorrow we'll take up that motion to instruct and we'll 
see if by the end of this week we're willing to compromise. Are we 
willing to put Americans back to work, 2 million Americans? Or are we 
going to hold fast to perhaps a funding scheme that has been proposed 
and can't even be agreed to by the members of the Republican caucus, or 
an elimination of certain categories of funding like public 
transportation which couldn't even be agreed to by the Republican 
caucus, let alone the Democrats.
  It's time to look at the bigger picture. It's time to look at that 
construction worker in our community, the ones we represent and say I 
want you to go back to work. We'll fight this out another day. But the 
most fundamental, the most important issue confronting this American 
economy and each and every individual in America is, where are the 
jobs? Where is my job? How can I support my family?
  It's time to put the bickering aside. It's time to accept the fact 
that Americans want to go to work, and 2 million Americans are out 
there looking for their opportunity. And their opportunity rests with 
us. It rests with the House of Representatives. The Senate has done its 
work. It's put a 2 year, fully funded transportation bill that meets 
the needs of this Nation for the next 2 years. They passed it out. This 
House has not passed a transportation bill.
  We put a stopgap thing out so we can go to conference, but it wasn't 
a transportation bill. It didn't do the job. Maybe Wednesday, Thursday, 
or maybe some time Friday there can be an agreement between the two 
houses. But if there is not an agreement, then as I heard not more than 
an hour ago from my Republican colleagues, in agreeing to the motion to 
instruct, that if there is no agreement, then take up the Senate bill. 
That was in fact the motion. Take up the Senate bill if there is no 
agreement. Put 2 million Americans back to work. Repair our highways. 
Repair our bridges. Buy American. Enhance the buy American provisions.
  We've got work to do. Americans have work to do. Americans want to 
work, and it's time for this House to work. And with that, Mr. Speaker, 
I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________