[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11511-11516]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           MAKE IT IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bentivolio). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss 
this evening jobs, putting Americans back to work, building our 
foundation for economic growth.
  For many, many days now, in fact, for more than 2 years, the 
Democrats in the House have been discussing a project which we call 
Make It In America. These are strategies that we're putting forth to 
develop more jobs in America, to rebuild our manufacturing industry, 
and to bring wealth back to the United States.
  I would love to comment on the issues that I've heard earlier with 
just my colleagues on immigration, but I'll let that go. I would just 
say one thing. The last comment that was made about the earned income 
tax credit, I would remind my colleagues that that was a Ronald Reagan 
program. Take that for what you might.
  Back to Make It In America. These are the basic issues. We talk about 
trade policy, fair trade policy, not giving away our opportunities; tax 
policy, to encourage manufacturing and jobs here in United States; 
energy policy, how we're going to renew our energy system, become 
energy independent, the role of clean fuels, the role of renewable 
fuels and gas; the labor market, education.
  Perhaps the most important of all of these is a well-educated 
workforce. If we have that, many of these other issues would fall into 
place--the role of research in creating tomorrow's economy, tomorrow's 
businesses, the things that need to be made in the future.
  But tonight we want to talk about, not the least on this, it just 
happens to be the lowest on this list, and that is infrastructure. It's 
one of those critical investments. It's the foundation upon which the 
economy grows or not. If we have a solid infrastructure--transportation 
systems, water systems, sanitation systems, communication systems, 
research facilities, educational facilities, that's all part of the 
infrastructure. Some of it is private; much of it is public investment. 
But this is one of the fundamental investments, along with these other 
issues here, that our economy has traditionally made over the years. 
And unfortunately, in the current situation, we seem to be falling off 
the power curve that created the foundation for the American economy 
upon which to grow.
  So today, we're going to really focus on this infrastructure issue, 
not a new issue. Actually, George Washington, I think he was our first 
President, told his Cabinet Secretary, Treasury Secretary, to develop a 
plan to grow the economy, called, A Plan for Manufactures.
  Alexander Hamilton came back to Washington with a plan. One of the 
many points that he raised and suggestions that Alexander Hamilton made 
was to create infrastructure. He said the Federal Government ought to 
build canals, ports, and roads, fundamental infrastructure upon which 
the American economy would grow. And those things were done right back 
at the very beginning of this country. So from the very earliest days, 
the Federal Government has been involved in building infrastructure.
  Now, tonight, joining me are two of my colleagues, Mr. Delaney from 
the great State of Maryland and Mr. Castro from Texas. They're going to 
talk about infrastructure. And I'd like now to turn to Mr. Delaney, who 
has a proposal that, actually, the President of the United States 
suggested in his American Jobs Act program, a program that he put forth 
more than a year ago that the Republican Congress has done nothing 
with. So Mr. Delaney has picked up one of the suggestions that the 
President made, made it whole, and has presented legislation on an 
infrastructure bank.
  Mr. Delaney, please join us and tell us about how the infrastructure 
bank would work and what it would do for America.
  Mr. DELANEY. I will do that.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us this time this evening.
  And I want to thank my good friend and colleague from California for 
organizing our discussion here this evening and his work on Make It In 
America. It's important work, and it's work we, as a Congress, should 
be focused on.
  I think my colleague from California knows that I'm very passionate 
about the infrastructure investments that we need to be making as a 
country. I, quite frankly, believe it's our number one domestic 
economic policy challenge and opportunity, and I say that for three 
reasons:
  First, it is the easiest way to get Americans back to work with jobs 
that have a good standard of living, which should be one of our main 
focuses as a Congress.
  Second, making a smart and significant investment in our 
infrastructure, in our road and transportation infrastructure, in our 
logistics, in our communications and in our energy and water 
infrastructure, making a smart and significant investment in this 
infrastructure will improve the overall competitiveness of the United 
States, which is the number one thing we should be focused on when we 
think

[[Page 11512]]

about our future in the context of a global and technology-enabled 
world.
  The third reason I favor infrastructure investments is because they 
pencil out; in other words, the data overwhelmingly suggests that an 
investment in infrastructure has a very, very good payback to the 
economy.
  Just to put the infrastructure situation in this country in context, 
I want to cite a recent report done by the American Society of Civil 
Engineers; and they do a survey of our infrastructure every 2 years. 
The report recently came out and they provided us a grade. They 
actually grade each component of our infrastructure. Our cumulative 
grade as a country--and remember, this is the wealthiest, most 
successful country in the history of the world. Our cumulative grade 
for our infrastructure was a D-plus. And the civil engineers estimate 
that we have to make an investment of at least $2 trillion to $3 
trillion to bring our infrastructure up to a grade that we deem 
successful--$2 trillion to $3 trillion.
  In addition, there's an argument that the existing investments we 
make in infrastructure, even if they were to be increased, the programs 
that we have, the very, very important infrastructure programs we have 
as a country, like investing or making sure the highway trust fund is 
funded at the level that's appropriate and consistent with historical 
averages, even if we were to make these investments, which I clearly 
believe we should and I know my colleague from California believes we 
should, there's still a very strong argument, or the data would 
suggest, that we will continue to accumulate an infrastructure gap. In 
other words, the amount that we need to invest in our infrastructure to 
make us competitive will continue to grow. And so this is a very, very 
significant problem.
  And to put this problem in further context, we need to remember that 
infrastructure is services and investments for the common good. They're 
public services, and they're historically made by governments, the 
Federal Government, the State governments and local governments.
  And we all know that governments are under fiscal pressure right now. 
Both our Federal Government and our local governments are under 
pressure. So we need, as we think about investing in our 
infrastructure, to not just be funding the existing programs that we 
have up to the levels that they deserve to be funded at--and that 
should be a main priority of this Congress--but we also need to be 
thinking about new and creative and fiscally sensitive and sustainable 
ways of investing in our infrastructure across the long term.
  Our infrastructure problem is a multidimensional problem, meaning 
there's lots of reasons we have this problem, so we need numerous tools 
to solve the problem. And one of those tools, I think, exists in 
legislation that's been filed that we led--it was filed several weeks 
ago in the Congress--that right now has 18 Republican and 18 Democratic 
cosponsors, so it's truly bipartisan legislation. We also have 25 
groups that have supported the legislation, outside groups representing 
both parties typically in the terms of their orientation.
  The Partnership to Build America Act creates the American 
infrastructure fund, which is designed to be a large-scale 
infrastructure financing capability that can finance many of the 
projects my colleague from California will talk about tonight, Mr. 
Speaker. But what's important about the American infrastructure fund is 
it's funded without any appropriations from the government. Instead, 
it's funded by providing corporations with an incentive to invest.
  Under the Partnership to Build America Act, the American 
infrastructure fund is capitalized with $50 billion of capital. The 
capital comes from the fund selling bonds that are not guaranteed by 
the Federal Government. They are long-term, 50-year, and they pay a 1 
percent interest rate, so they're very attractive, low-cost capital 
that, if put into the American infrastructure fund, will allow it to 
provide $750 billion of loan guarantees to local governments and direct 
loans, if necessary, to local governments--$750 billion of funding 
capacity.
  Over a 50-year life, we expect that money to turn two to three times, 
and so that could be up to $2 trillion of financing without any 
appropriations from the Federal Government. The $50 billion that 
capitalizes the American infrastructure fund comes from selling these 
bonds not guaranteed by the Federal Government, 50-year bonds, 1 
percent interest.
  As an incentive to get companies to buy these bonds, we're proposing 
that they get a tax break on their ability to repatriate their overseas 
earnings.
  We've all talked about the issue we have with our Tax Code and how 
it's created a situation where U.S. corporations are accumulating 
significant amounts of cash overseas. Under the American infrastructure 
fund, they have a way of bringing back up to 10 percent of that capital 
in a way that we know will create American jobs by investing in our 
infrastructure.
  So we put forth the American infrastructure fund as a solution to the 
problems that my colleague from California is discussing, as an 
innovative financing solution to deal with the infrastructure problems 
that this country has, and to do it in a way that's additive to the 
existing programs that exist and can be done in a way that is fiscally 
responsible in light of the fiscal pressures that the country has.
  So this is some of the work that we've been doing in our office to 
advance that important work that my friend from California is talking 
about this evening.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Delaney, that is a fascinating way of bringing 
capital to this program. California has numerous high-technology 
companies, Apple and many, many others. All of them come to us, 
representatives from California, and they complain about the 
repatriation. They'd like to bring those earnings from overseas back to 
the United States. They've got maybe $1 trillion sitting out there, if 
I recall the number. Maybe that's about--I don't know. Whatever the 
number is, a lot of dollars. They want to bring it back, but they don't 
want to pay the 35 percent corporate tax.
  So you're suggesting that they could bring that back in a way that 
they wouldn't face that tax, but the money that came back would be--at 
least a portion of it would be used to finance this infrastructure 
bank.
  Have I got this pretty much correct here?
  Mr. DELANEY. That's right. And the estimates are up to almost $2 
trillion of cash.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I understated it. Two trillion dollars sitting 
offshore.
  Mr. DELANEY. Two trillion dollars. And that reflects a significant 
problem with our Tax Code, which we'll reserve for another session for 
discussion.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. That's this thing called taxes, number 2 up here.
  Mr. DELANEY. Exactly, which is a long discussion.
  But under the Partnership to Build America Act, the American 
infrastructure fund is capitalized by selling $50 billion of bonds, and 
we sell them to corporations; and they're not guaranteed by the Federal 
Government, so there's no taxpayer risk. For every dollar of those 
bonds the company buys, they can bring back a certain amount of their 
overseas earnings. We estimate that to be 4 to 1, but it's actually 
determined by an auction that will be done by the fund.
  So if $50 billion of bonds are subscribed to by some of the companies 
in your State, some of the companies in my State, Maryland--because the 
district I represent, part of the district I represent, Montgomery 
County, Maryland, has the 270 transportation corridor that is filled 
with information technology companies and biotechnology companies very 
similar to the kind of companies that are in your district, so some of 
them may be from Maryland as well.

                              {time}  2045

  But if they buy $50 billion of bonds, then they can bring back $200 
billion from overseas tax free.
  The bonds, again, are nonguaranteed by the government, 50-year, 1 
percent interest. So they're not an attractive investment. The ability 
to bring back

[[Page 11513]]

that money tax free is the incentive for them to do it. They get to 
bring back money and invest it in our economy. We get $50 billion to 
capitalize a fund that could provide $2 trillion, provide the capital 
base to provide $2 trillion of financing over 50 years without any cost 
to the taxpayer.
  So I think you summarized it perfectly.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I think you did. I was trying to grasp the totality of 
it. It is a process in which now this is a piece of legislation; it's 
here in the House. I would hope that our colleagues on the Republican 
side that control the passage of legislation, even the taking up of 
legislation in committee, would look at this and go, oh, you mean we 
can actually build $200 million or $2 trillion of infrastructure over a 
50-year period without any appropriation, with no taxpayer dollars, 
other than some amount that's foregone in the repatriation.
  Very interesting, a very, very exciting proposal; and I would hope we 
take it up.
  I am sure that there will be questions about, well, who gets the 
money, who decides which projects are going to be selected.
  Mr. DELANEY. Right. Under our legislation, the States make the 
determination. The American Infrastructure Fund has to develop an 
allocation process that every State has an allocation based on their 
economic science.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. California being the most populous State----
  Mr. DELANEY. You would have the largest allocation.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, I like that already.
  Mr. DELANEY. Yes, I knew you would enjoy that feature of the 
legislation.
  But in all seriousness, we have good bipartisan support. I have 20 of 
my Republican colleagues on the bill with 20 Democratic colleagues; 18 
are on it officially right now. We have received very constructive 
feedback from all of my colleagues. They have all worked to make the 
legislation better. We are looking forward to continue to build good 
bipartisan support. I think we both know that when the private sector 
and government work well together on economic challenges we get very 
good economic outcomes.
  I want to thank you for giving me this time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Delaney, thank you very, very much. Obviously, 
Maryland is very well represented with some innovative thinking from 
their Representatives.
  Infrastructure banks are not new. This is a new way of financing it, 
and a very exciting one. Thank you so very much for joining us this 
evening.
  Mr. DELANEY. We all build on each other's ideas.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. We will continue to work on this, and we will talk 
about it again in the future.
  California is the most populous State. I didn't say ``popular,'' 
although I would certainly say that. Texas being the second biggest in 
geography.
  We now have our new Representative from Texas joining us, Mr. Castro. 
Thank you so very, very much. Texas likes to talk about all the good 
things they are doing. One good thing they did was to send you here. 
So, Mr. Castro, please join us and talk to us about Texas and 
infrastructure.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. First of all, thank you, Congressman, for your 
leadership on this issue and on this legislation Make It In America. 
Thank you to Congressman Delaney for all of the work that he's doing on 
infrastructure.
  In Texas, infrastructure obviously is very important to us. We have a 
State that, obviously, is incredibly large in land mass, second only to 
Alaska. We have, for example, the most number of bridges of any State 
in the Nation, miles and miles of interstate highways and roads.
  So I stand here tonight with you to reaffirm the point that we must 
never neglect our infrastructure of transportation; building out our 
roads, our highways, our waterways, our mass transit systems, making 
sure that Americans can get to where they want to go by air, by land, 
by sea. We must make sure that our infrastructure of transportation 
keeps up also and is competitive with that of places in Europe and in 
Asia, particularly for commercial purposes.
  But also, Congressman, I wanted to point out that just as there is an 
infrastructure of transportation, there is in America another kind of 
infrastructure, and that is an infrastructure of opportunity that 
allows each of us to pursue our American Dreams. So, for example, just 
as there are streets and highways that help us get to where we want to 
go on the road, there is an infrastructure of opportunity in America 
that allows us to get to where we want to go in life. That 
infrastructure of opportunity would include, for example, great public 
schools and universities, a strong health care system in an economy 
that's built around well-paying jobs so that people can support 
themselves and their family members.
  In fact, when we ask the question here in Congress: What is it that 
distinguishes America from among the nations of the world, I would 
argue that it is the fact that over the generations, Americans have 
come together to build out that infrastructure of opportunity that 
allows each of us, no matter our race, our class, where we come from, 
allows each of us to chase our American Dream.
  I think all of us understand, and I think you would agree with me, I 
have never met any American who has asked for a guarantee of success in 
our Nation. Folks don't ask for a guarantee of success. What they ask 
for is the opportunity to pursue that success. So we must continue 
building not only the roads that we need and the highways, but also the 
great schools and universities, a strong health care system, and as you 
mentioned, with the American Jobs Act making sure that Americans can go 
to work and support themselves and their family.
  I will just wrap up with this. There has been a lot of debate around 
here, and I know in the last hour there was, about immigration. There 
is a big debate about how to handle our immigration issue. That is a 
challenge and has been a challenge for this Congress.
  But if you put aside the debate over what to do with folks who are 
here, whether it is visas or permanent legal residency, whatever it is, 
and we just ask ourselves, why is it for a few hundred years now that 
America has been the destination Nation for people from literally every 
corner of the Earth, why is that, I would argue it is because we have 
built up a place, a society of opportunity where people can pursue 
their dreams.
  Congressman, I think you would agree with me, in all of the 
immigrants I've met, whether they came from Europe or Asia or Mexico or 
somewhere else, I've never heard anybody tell me that the reason they 
came to our country was because they were looking for the lowest 
corporate tax rate. People, in fact, come here because they are looking 
to be part of a system of opportunity that as Americans we have built 
up together. We must make sure, all of us in Congress, working as 
Republicans and Democrats united for our country, make sure that when 
somebody asks 50 years from now or 100 years from now, where is it on 
Earth that people want to be, that the answer is still ``the United 
States of America.'' We must build out the infrastructure of 
transportation and the infrastructure of opportunity to achieve that 
answer.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Castro, thank you so very, very much. Often, in 
fact, I've talked about infrastructure in a physical way, that is, the 
physical features of roads and water systems. But your discussion of 
infrastructure being the infrastructure of opportunity, which does 
include those things, it also includes this one, which is education, a 
critical element in the process of education. If we are going to build 
infrastructure of opportunity, this is where opportunity starts for 
virtually everybody in this country: the opportunity to get a good 
education.
  Part of that is the physical building itself. Obviously, it is the 
teachers, the way in which the subjects are taught, and access, access 
to not only K through 12, but also higher education. This is one of the 
things that when we talk about physical infrastructure, we need to talk 
about the classroom itself, about the facility, air-conditioning, as 
well as the communication systems,

[[Page 11514]]

computers and other kinds of communication systems.
  So the infrastructure of opportunity, what a wonderful theme, what a 
wonderful way of describing America and this discussion we've heard 
before we came on the floor about immigration. You could not be more 
correct.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Thank you, Congressman.
  I would point out, for example, in Texas, we have our challenges. In 
California, for example, you have nine research universities, which are 
the top-tier universities. In New York, they have about seven. In 
Texas, we only have three right now, so we have a long way to go to 
catch up.
  We are trying to catch up. In fact, there was a bit of good news. 
Governor Perry today signed a bill that would merge two schools, two 
colleges, two universities, in what is known as the Texas Valley in 
south Texas, and ultimately will create a medical school.
  That is very important for a few reasons. I want to use real quick 
this example in the Texas Valley in south Texas along the Texas-Mexico 
border, which is often in conversation here in Congress. It is a place 
of about between 1 million and 1\1/2\ million folks, very hardworking 
people, wake up early in the morning, go to work, put in a hard day's 
work without complaint, and then go home to their families, often go 
home and say prayers of thanks to God for what He has given them.
  In that area known as the Texas Valley, cities like Edinburg and 
McAllen and Weslaco and Brownsville, did you know that you still can't 
get a medical degree anywhere in that area, anywhere south of San 
Antonio, my hometown? You can drive the 4 hours between San Antonio and 
the Texas-Mexico border and not be able to get a medical degree. You 
can't get a law degree anywhere between San Antonio and the Texas-
Mexico border. And there are only a handful of Ph.D. programs.
  So when I speak of missing pieces, literally, of the infrastructure, 
to me the Texas Valley is one example of that. I know many folks like 
Congressman Hinojosa, Congressman Cuellar, Congressman Vela, they're 
working very hard to change those things; but those changes have been 
slow in coming.
  I will also point out with regard to the infrastructure of 
transportation, which is part of the infrastructure of opportunity, 
something that is also missing. For example, when you try to drive--my 
fiancee is from a small town called Alton, Texas, right near Mission, a 
few miles from the Texas-Mexico border--when you drive from San Antonio 
down to the Valley, you drive those 4 hours or so and there is no 
continuous interstate highway that you can take without stopping in 
town after town.
  So you can imagine what that means to a traveler, but even more so 
what it means for commercial enterprises, for our businesses that are 
trying to do trade, trying to get their goods to Mexico, or importing 
their goods from Mexico. Those things are very, very important; and 
we've got to continue to do this great work that you've been a leader 
on.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought for a moment you were going to go into more 
detail about your own personal emotions as you stop in every one of 
these towns on your way to see your fiancee, but we'll let that go for 
another time.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Well, I've got a story tomorrow. I think I'm 
going to join the folks about immigration on the immigration issue and 
what I've learned visiting those places.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. There's much to learn about that. But, again, if you 
go back to our Make It In America agenda, these issues, the labor 
market and education, fit into that infrastructure of opportunity.
  I've always said that if you're going to build an economy and have 
social justice, there are five things you must always do:
  First, you must have the best education system in the world that's 
available to everybody so that they can climb that ladder, as you were 
saying earlier, that they have that opportunity;
  Second, that you have a great research system, and we do. Actually, 
we have 10 campuses of the University of California. Some of the State 
universities are now picking up some of the research agenda also. But 
anyway, the research;
  And then you need to make things coming out of that. That's the 
manufacturing. And that may be a computer program, or it could be an 
automobile. But you need to be making things, adding, creating value;
  The infrastructure being the fourth;
  And the fifth being you've got to be willing to change. You can't do 
what you did yesterday; you need to deal with things of tomorrow.
  There are many other pieces to this. We talked a little bit about 
education here and the way it works.
  This was a statistic that was given earlier. Mr. Delaney went through 
this very quickly. But for every dollar you invest in the physical 
infrastructure, you are going to get back immediately about $1.57 as 
that money churns through the economy as the concrete is purchased, as 
it is put in place, men and women are doing that work, and then that 
churns back through the economy, actually giving great stimulation to 
the economy. Not our words. These are Mark Zandi's words, the chief 
economist of Moody's Analytics.
  This is a very, very well-known thing. So if we want to really move 
the economy, we can take Mr. Delaney's idea about an infrastructure 
bank, not an appropriation, invest and put people to work and give a 
boost to the economy; and in doing so, you also create better tax flow 
into the government.
  The other thing, and this is something that I know Texas is working 
on, as is California, and that's rail transportation. If I recall 
correctly, Fort Worth is the headquarters of BNSF Railway. This is just 
a picture of a new Amtrak train that was manufactured in Sacramento. 
Part of the infrastructure investment that is now being made here in 
the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston, this new train is 
100 percent American-made.
  Back in the stimulus bill, about 80-some trains were proposed to be 
purchased, about a half a billion dollars, and they wrote into it 
``must be American-made.'' So Siemens, a German company, came to 
Sacramento where they had a light rail shop, decided they could build a 
heavy-duty locomotive and make it 100 percent American-made.

                              {time}  2100

  So this one is now being tested--the first model out--and there will 
be some 80 of these on the Northeast corridor, increasing the speed, 
the movement, the transportation system. For all of America, rail 
transportation--light rail, heavy rail, and even high-speed rail--are 
ways in which we move our physical transportation, and if we cause 
those products to be made in America, we also increase our 
manufacturing base. Again, it's part of the American program of making 
it in America by using infrastructure.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. I think you're absolutely right on that. For 
example, Congressman Garamendi, last week, San Antonio received word 
that, in a year, our exports went up 33 percent. There was a 33 percent 
increase in exports.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. From the city and region of San Antonio.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. In San Antonio. Coming from San Antonio. So 
these channels for getting our products to different markets are 
absolutely vital to continuing that success.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. There are so many different things that we could talk 
about in this process.
  This is a piece of legislation that, actually, I've introduced for 
the last couple of years. This particular piece of legislation, H.R. 
1524, says, if it's your tax money--the American taxpayers' money--then 
it ought to be used to purchase American-made equipment. That's exactly 
what happened with the earlier stimulus bill in the manufacturing of 
these locomotives in California, but there are some 200 different 
suppliers all around the Nation who are supplying that.
  We can really boost the economy in the transportation system but also 
in

[[Page 11515]]

the energy system--solar, wind. All of those are subsidized, as is oil 
and coal, with American taxpayer money, either with a tax credit or a 
subsidy or a direct payment, and if we said, Okay, but you must produce 
that product in America--as with the wind turbines, make them in 
America, as well as similarly with solar panels and other kinds of 
equipment. So these are all things that fit into this.
  The theme that you hit on early on, I think, is so very, very 
important, and that is the infrastructure of opportunity. I really like 
that. I think that, as we go about our business here of passing laws or 
not, we ought to keep in mind that our task is to create that 
opportunity.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. I think, Congressman, when we think about issues 
that come up here, issues that sometimes succumb to the gridlock that 
is Congress these days--for example, on the student loan issue--that's 
why it's so important that we make sure that we do right by students 
and not allow that student loan interest rate to double. In these tough 
economic times, it's hard enough for families to scrounge up the money 
to help send their kids to college and for the kids to work a job or 
two and go to class. They're often in this work-school tug-of-war where 
many of them work part-time or full-time and at the same time take 
their 15 hours or 12 hours to graduate in a decent number of years. The 
least that Congress can do is make sure that we set a student loan rate 
that is affordable and reasonable for the economic times that we live 
in.
  Those things are not handouts. Those are investments to make sure 
that you've got a well-educated population. These are loans, after all. 
They're paying these back. It's also, I think, their government saying, 
Look, we're going to lend you this money at a decent rate--we're going 
to make sure it comes at a reasonable rate--and you're going to pay it 
back to us, but from that, we're going to get folks who are engineers, 
who are police officers and firefighters and doctors and all of the 
things that keep our society moving and keep this country the greatest 
Nation on Earth.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Castro, you put that so very well. It's a critical 
investment that the American public makes in the next generation so 
that this economy can move forward.
  There is also--we've been debating this on the floor--a bill that 
passed out of here that would set the student loan interest rate as a 
variable rate, much like a home mortgage variable rate. Watch out, as 
we know what happened with the variable rates that went on. It was 
interesting that that particular bill would actually create income, a 
large amount of income if I remember the numbers--some $30 billion over 
the next 10 years of income. So it was like wait a minute. Are we 
really just doing this to get the money back or are we looking at this 
as a profit center? I think it was a serious mistake, first, to do a 
variable interest rate. That would move it up, quite possibly, to more 
than what the doubling of the 3.4 percent would be to, maybe, 8, 9 
percent, 10 percent. Bad idea--and it's looking at the problem 
incorrectly.
  The way to look at it is just as you said. This is a way for the 
American public to make an investment in a student at a low-interest 
cost to the student but sufficient to repay the Federal Government, not 
as a profit center but as a repayment. There are some administrative 
costs to be sure. That's how we ought to look at this because it is a 
crucial investment, the most important investment of all--the 
educational investment.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. I couldn't agree more.
  Just personally, I started college in the fall of 1992--21 years ago 
now. In 1991 or 1992, my mom made less than $20,000, and she was 
getting ready to send two twin sons--of course I have my brother--off 
to Stanford University in northern California. You can imagine how 
daunting that was, but there is no way that my brother and I could have 
gone to college and graduated without student loans--without Perkins 
loans, without Stafford loans. It was the same thing for law school. So 
these are vital. I mean, that's just my own story. There are literally 
millions of stories like that across the country.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. And a very sound investment was made in you and your 
brother, who I believe is the mayor of San Antonio.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. That's right.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Indeed.
  There is much to be said. I'm just going to share with you, and 
perhaps you have a similar situation from your own experience.
  This weekend, I was back in my district in northern California, in 
Yuba City and Marysville. Now, the Feather River, which is one of the 
major rivers--tributaries--of the Sacramento River, goes right between 
these two towns, with Marysville on the east side and Yuba City on the 
west side. This is one of the most dangerous places in America. The 
Feather River and the Yuba River, which come together at that place, 
have a long history of deadly floods. What the citizens need there is 
the help of the Federal Government to complete the levee and enhance 
the levees around their communities.
  We had a major debate here on the floor last week with the Energy and 
Water bill in which the Ryan budget--that is the Republican budget--was 
seen in its fullness for the first time. What that budget called for 
was a diminution--in fact, a very, very significant cut--in the 
infrastructure investment for the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army 
Corps of Engineers builds the levees, the locks and other major public 
works. Sequestration took $250 million of construction out of the Army 
Corps of Engineers, and right now construction projects that were 
scheduled are not taking place. In addition to that, the proposed 
budget in the actual appropriation bill even further reduced the money 
available to the Army Corps of Engineers to build the levees to protect 
communities all across the United States. At the very same time, money 
was shifted from the Corps of Engineers--from the levees and the things 
that are necessary to protect American citizens and others who are here 
from devastating floods--to build more nuclear weapons.
  What in the world is that all about?
  We've got 5,500 nuclear weapons now. The money was shifted. They all 
worked, and there is no way we would ever use all of them unless you 
want to end life on the Earth. Yet that was a priority issue--nuclear 
weapons versus levees to protect Americans. It is the wrong priority, 
but it is a fundamental example of the infrastructure needs and the 
wrongheaded priorities that sometimes find their way into legislation.
  Unfortunately, that bill passed. That is the statement of the House 
of Representatives. Now, every Democrat voted against it, but it did 
pass the House. That now will go over to the Senate, and the Senate, I 
am sure, will never set that priority the same as this; but in a 
conference committee, we are now looking at a tug-of-war between 
nuclear weapons and levees to protect Americans. Hopefully, the levees 
will win. We'll see. That's one example.
  When I went home this weekend, people asked me, ``What was that all 
about?'' I said, ``That was about bad priorities and an austerity 
budget working together.''
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. We know, of course, Congressman, that the 
sequester was taking a meat cleaver rather than trying to do real smart 
cuts, so I agree with you on that.
  With respect to the work of the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
important work that they do, it is often felt in San Antonio and in 
Texas, of course, during everything that happened with Hurricane 
Katrina in New Orleans and all of the important work they had done 
around that. So you're right. I think that Americans expect that they 
will be in homes that are not going to flood and that there is going to 
be infrastructure in place to make sure that water doesn't come up and 
run them out of their homes and ruin their homes and their properties.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Also, without adequate levees, you clearly slow down 
economic development.
  Now, not every city has a flood problem; although, certainly, in the 
great

[[Page 11516]]

Midwest, you see this in all of the cities along the Missouri and the 
Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. So, in that entire huge basin, which is 
more than 60 percent of the United States, there are serious flood 
issues. This extends--and certainly we see it on the east coast--to 
Superstorm Sandy, and you mentioned Katrina. All across this Nation the 
issue of flood protection is critical.
  In my own district, Sacramento, there is a portion of Sacramento 
that, I think, is now rated as the most dangerous city in the United 
States. It is the Natomas area of Sacramento. With the rebuilding of 
the levees in New Orleans, I think now Natomas, Sacramento, is rated as 
the most dangerous. We are talking about a flood situation that could 
occur, because the levees are substandard, in which the river would 
break. We have floods in the winter, so the water temperatures are in 
the 45- to 50-degree temperatures. If that were to break, the 
inundation would be immediate, and it would be 20 feet. The survival 
time is measured in minutes, not in hours. When that water hits you, 
you get hypothermia and you're dead.
  So it is an extreme problem. We need to rebuild those levees. The 
community is taxing itself to a fare-thee-well to do it, but the 
Federal Government is backing away from its previous commitment. The 
rest of the story is that the economic development potential in that 
community is stifled. It's not just housing. It's all kinds of economic 
development, as the Sacramento International Airport is in that area.
  With the lack of money to build the levees, human life is at risk--
several tens of thousands of people--and economic development. So these 
things come together--infrastructure being the foundation upon which 
the economy grows and, in some cases, certainly in the case of levees, 
upon which people's lives depend.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. You make an important point about neglect of 
that infrastructure, not only with levees and with waterways, but you 
and I are both aware, as is the country, of the tragic examples over 
the last several years--in Minnesota, for example, in the bridge 
collapse, and more recently in Washington, I believe, in that bridge 
collapse. Those are lessons to this Congress that we cannot neglect our 
infrastructure. It is vital. I mentioned Texas. By that same report 
that Congressman Delaney mentioned, we have about 1,300 bridges that 
have been declared functionally obsolete. That's 1,300 functionally 
obsolete bridges in Texas. That's one in six. So those are things that 
we've got to attend to here.
  It also begs the point: whether it's building out the infrastructure 
of transportation or building out the infrastructure of opportunity, 
that doesn't happen by itself. It doesn't happen by accident. It 
doesn't happen by luck. The United States Government and the Congress 
must make those smart investments. We must continue to make those 
investments if we are going to be the land of opportunity not just 5 
years from now or 20 years from now but 50 and 100 years from now.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I think it's about time for us to wrap up, but I want 
to engage the public. I don't know how many people are watching C-SPAN 
this evening. I would like to think there are some 300 million, but I 
suspect that's overstating it a ways.
  I would ask the public to comment to you and me about their 
infrastructure in their communities. What do they need in their 
communities? How do they think it could be financed? As to Mr. 
Delaney's proposal for an infrastructure bank based upon the 
repatriation of foreign earnings, does that make sense?

                              {time}  2115

  Does it make sense to do what the President said, which is to 
appropriate $50 billion right now to build infrastructure? There are 
many different alternatives.
  But I'd love to hear from the public, and here's how they can do it. 
I'm going to use yours down here too. Stay in touch, stay informed, 
stay connected. You can go to Facebook.com/RepGaramendi or RepCastro. 
Either way, RepGaramendi, RepCastro. Twitter: Twitter.com/RepGaramendi 
or RepCastro. Or you can go to our Web site, Garamendi.house.gov.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Well, my Twitter, the House one, that's right. 
It should probably be JCastro.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I think there's more than one Castro. There's only one 
Garamendi around. So probably JCastro.house.gov. That's the Web site, 
and they can get in touch that way and keep informed.
  So I welcome people. If anybody out there is watching this discussion 
about infrastructure, how it can be financed, why it's important, what 
it means for economic development, education, what it means for social 
justice and opportunity--if you like the theme, the infrastructure of 
opportunity, you can contact me and I'll pass it on to Mr. Castro, or 
you can go directly to JC[email protected] or Facebook.com/RepGaramendi, 
RepCastro.
  I want to thank you, Mr. Castro and Mr. Delaney, for joining me this 
evening.
  Next week we'll take up one of the other issues that we have. We'll 
probably talk next week about energy and how we can improve the energy 
situation to meet the climate change.


                           Geothermal Energy

  Mr. GARAMENDI. I do have one more thing that I really must do before 
I close down, and that is talk about geothermal energy and one of the 
communities I represent, Lake County.
  We have a critical natural resource opportunity in this Nation, and 
it's beneath the soil, beneath the ground. It happens to be the heat of 
the Earth. It finds its way to the surface in many places around the 
world, and it certainly does in my district in Lake County.
  That heat comes from the geothermal, and it is an extraordinary 
natural resource and it is clean energy. It's one of the most abundant 
natural resources that can be found anywhere, and it's often 
overlooked. It has the ability to become one of the key future sources 
of energy. We'll talk about it much more next week.
  But I do want to talk about its use here in the United States. It is 
environmentally friendly. Dry steam and flash geothermal plants emit 
just 5 percent of the carbon dioxide and less than 1 percent of the 
nitrous oxide of traditional fossil fuel coal-powered plants. The 
binary geothermal installation emissions are near zero. More 
importantly, geothermal energy is cost effective.
  Over the last two decades, the cost of generating geothermal power 
has decreased by 25 percent. Additionally, geothermal can be produced 
domestically. In California, the Imperial Valley, the Lake County area, 
are two of the most used geothermal resources. Nevada has enormous 
resources, and there are many other places within the United States. 
And it can be sent--the same resource is available in many parts of the 
world. So we as a world and certainly as a State and Nation ought to be 
moving more aggressively to harness our geothermal resources.
  It's also a good jobs place, creating more than $117 million in 
annual wealth in the geothermal region of Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake 
Counties.
  It's also a tax source. Lake County and Samoa County receive over $11 
million in annual tax revenues directly from the geyser's geothermal 
field. And Lake County has saved millions of dollars in the disposal 
cost by funneling 8 million gallons of wastewater back into the ground 
for the harnessing of geothermal resources.
  So I draw the attention tonight of the Nation to the potential of 
geothermal and the success that it's had in my district in Lake County 
and in my neighboring county of Sonoma.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________