The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“MAKE IT IN AMERICA” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H571-H576 on Feb. 9, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
MAKE IT IN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss what's on every American's mind, and that is a job. My own family, they're thinking constantly about will they be able to keep their job, what's going to happen in the school system, are there going to be layoffs?
I know that in the communities I represent that have very high unemployment, on the minds of every family is, will there be a job for me?
Over the last more than 2\1/2\ years now, the Democratic majority, and now the Democratic minority, has focused on this issue. Like a laser, our focus was on creating jobs in America. Immediately upon taking office in 2009, President Obama and the Democratic majority here in this House put forward the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That law created, by most every economist's estimate, more than 2 million jobs, or maintained more than 2 million jobs in America. It was an enormous boost to the American economy. That, together with other programs that were developed during that period of 2009, stabilized the American economy. It certainly didn't get us out of the recession, but it prevented the great depression that could have occurred.
We're now, this year, in 2011, once again focusing, like a laser, on creating jobs in America. It's the President's intent. He spoke to this issue here when he spoke to us at the State of the Union. He was across the street from the White House just 2 days ago talking to the Chamber of Commerce about this issue of creating jobs, jobs in America. And this is where we're coming from. If America's going to make it, we're going to have to make it in America. Great examples of this are once again being seen. I see that my colleague from Detroit is here, and if he would care to join us in a few moments, we'll be talking about a very unique advertisement that occurred at the Super Bowl, one in which Imported from Detroit is now the message across America. It's not that Chrysler disappeared; it's actually that Chrysler continues to exist, along with General Motors, because the Obama administration and the Democrats here in the Congress reached out and gave a boost up for those two great American corporations. And today they continue, they continue to produce jobs in America because they are making cars in America. So our theme is Make It in America. There's a whole series of policies that are encompassed in this schematic of Make It in America, so that America can make it.
Trade policies. We're all for trade. We think it's an extremely important element in growing jobs and growing the economy. But it has to be fair trade. And when we look to countries such as China, we question whether indeed it is fair trade.
The Democrats in this House last year--and we will try once again this year to pass a currency reform piece of legislation that would force the Department of Commerce to take into account the unfair currency manipulation that China is engaged in. Economists estimate that it's perhaps 40 percent undervalued. Who can compete against that? Not very many. And therefore, we see goods flowing into America and America cash flowing into China.
Tax policy, extremely important. Last year, without the help of any of our Republican colleagues, we passed legislation that became law that ended a $12 billion a year tax break for American corporations that are shipping jobs offshore. What was that all about? You mean to tell me that American corporations actually got a reduction in their taxes when they shipped jobs offshore? Yes, they did. But not anymore, because of the Democratic determination to keep jobs in America.
Energy policy, labor policy, education policy, intellectual property, infrastructure. All of these elements, all seven of these elements, are key ingredients in creating jobs in America.
You can hear some people say, well, it's all about the private sector; just let the private sector go and there will be plenty of jobs. It doesn't happen, never happened. You can go back into the history of this Nation, and it's always been solid, good public policy connected to the private sector that created the great surges in the American economy.
Take, for example, the railroads in America in the 19th century. In the mid-1800s, during the great Civil War, a bill was passed here in Congress signed by President Abraham Lincoln that did two things. That piece of legislation created the intercontinental rail system by giving government land to the rail companies so that they would be encouraged to build those intercontinental railroads.
The second bill that was passed created the research, and that's the intellectual side of this, and that's the land grant institutions. We must continue that long history of America, private sector working in concert with public policy to create jobs in America. And that's what we want to do with our Make It in America program that creates strong middle class jobs.
I'd like now to turn to my colleague from the great state of Ohio, Marcy Kaptur. If you would join us and tell us what's happening in the great industrial belt of America that we intend to rebuild.
Ms. KAPTUR. Congressman Garamendi, I want to thank you for your leadership. You are such an addition to this Congress. The people of California certainly made the right decision in sending you here.
And you know, this happens to be the week of the Super Bowl. And as we think about America as a super Nation, with made in America at the heart of our economic prowess, the big winner in the Super Bowl this year was actually the commercial by Chrysler Corporation for its innovative 2-minute spot featuring the Chrysler 200, to the soundtrack of Detroiter and rap artist Eminem. The commercial is really a celebration of the greatness of Detroit and the resilience of this incredible, incredible city.
{time} 1420
Mr. GARAMENDI. If you would be so kind as to yield. I notice that Representative Clarke just arrived, new to Congress, not new to Detroit. And what's going on in Detroit? Should I import my car from Tokyo or from Detroit?
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Absolutely not from Tokyo, definitely from Detroit. I want to thank you so much, Representative Garamendi, for making it a priority that we make it in America.
Yesterday I did talk about the great TV ad that was aired during the Super Bowl where the rapper Eminem highlighted the grittiness and ingenuity of Detroiters that have given us the ability to make some of the finest vehicles in the world. And I also mentioned how that spirit of Detroit is really rooted in American values, those values that cherish our God-given rights, to life, to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness.
I'm not just bringing these up as a constitutional exercise or as a discussion of American history. If you don't mind, I would like to share with you; this is really about my dad. My dad would be 100 years old if he were living today.
Back during the 1930s, during the Great Depression, he risked everything to emigrate to the U.S. from India. He risked everything to come over here, and he was attracted to Detroit so he could get a chance to build cars in the Ford foundry.
The heart that he brought to his job was the same heart that transformed the city of Detroit into the arsenal of democracy that helped save this country and save this world from fascism. And as I mentioned, it's that same heart that I believe will restore financial prosperity to our country and financial security to American families if we make it in America, because we've got the insight, we've got the hard work, we have the research and the capability to build those cars that are going to be powered by electricity, to help build those homes and those buildings that will be heated by the sun, and to manufacture the best products in the world that will provide economic stability to our country but also provide prosperity to the world.
There are many people here watching us whose family came here to this country because they had a dream. There are others, like my mother's people, who came to this country against their will. But either way, when you come to America, you have the right to have an opportunity to pursue happiness, whether it's happiness of having the peace of mind of being comfortable here or enjoying the excitement of pursuing your own personal ambition.
The pursuit of happiness in this country means that all of us have the opportunity to live our life as full as we choose it. And, you see, that opportunity to really use our intellect, our mind, our body and our spirit, that's what makes American manufacturing the most extraordinary achievement of modern civilization, because American manufacturing is not just about cheapening costs or taking someone's technology. It's about harnessing the genius that's within all of us. It's about unleashing the ingenuity that's inherent in humankind.
So that's why I urge this Congress, when we consider these policies right here on the board, whether it's who to trade with, who to train, how to tax, that we do all of this to focus on making it in America. Because when we do that, we can truly have enduring prosperity for all Americans and American families, and right now, our families are feeling so insecure. The answer is in our roots. It's in American manufacturing.
When we make it in Detroit, we make it in America.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Representative Clarke. Your passion for this issue was well displayed in that Detroit Chrysler advertisement.
And I would just point out, before I turn back to Ms. Kaptur, that Chrysler and General Motors were saved as an American manufacturing icon by policies of President Barack Obama. It was his policies, supported by the Democrats in the House and the Senate, that allowed for the support that those two corporations needed to reinvent themselves so that there could be jobs in America.
Now, Ms. Kaptur, you come from an area where manufacturing has been, really, the essence of the economy for a long time, and you have been supporting legislation and introducing legislation. Could you share with us those things that you are working on now and the legislation that you are pushing through this House?
Ms. KAPTUR. Yes.
First of all, let me just say, Congressman Garamendi, it is such a joy to have Congressman Clarke here from the wonderful city of Detroit. I really loved that commercial because I think it captured the struggle of our country through the lens of Detroit and, I might say, Toledo, just a few minutes south of Detroit. It talked about how the city had been to hell and back, and the trials and tribulations that manufacturing in our region has really experienced over the last quarter century.
There is, without a doubt, as Congressman Clarke says, that Detroit was the arsenal of democracy, and it still is. All along I-75, from Detroit down through Toledo, that as you take it down through Ohio and into the areas south, the automobiles, the tanks, all of our overland vehicles, the expeditionary fighting vehicle for the Marine Corps, all of that, the Warren Tank Command, is all along that region.
In Toledo, I have to brag a little bit, my hometown, that toddlin' town, still is, for all intents and purposes, home to the Jeep, the general purpose vehicle for which General Marshall ordered production for our troops in the European and Pacific theaters and we won the war. Rosie the Riveter, she had presence in Toledo, Ohio, at places like Champion Spark Plug where our mom worked, or at then Kaiser Jeep Corporation from which our father retired.
One of the most important challenges we have in this Congress is to have patriotic capitalism, to reward investment in America through our tax code. Not to let outsourcing win, but to let insourcing win, in the way we look at the books here at the national level.
In addition to that, I have a bill to renegotiate NAFTA; because back in 1993, NAFTA gave the green light to globalization and outsourcing, and every other trade agreement that has come down the pike has outsourced more jobs than insourced jobs for us. We got away from making it in America, and in sector after sector, closed markets in Japan, in China, in South Korea snuffed out production here as their production grew. But it has reached a breaking point. It has reached a breaking point in our country.
We have had to, through defense legislation we passed, saved the strategic metals industry, beryllium, titanium, magnesium, all of these important metals, both in defense as well as in the commercial industrial sector we could lose to other places. Our ability to do machine tooling, that was one of the first fights I had in here in the President's investment tax credit for investment in the United States to save the tooling, which is located within 300 miles of Detroit and Toledo. That's what America has. Is it any wonder that unemployment is 9 percent when you have these wacko trade deals that outsource more jobs?
The one bill I haven't mentioned, which is short-term, but we have so many people who are long-term unemployed.
This morning I asked Chairman Bernanke from the Federal Reserve, what do we do with people that want to work in Detroit, in Toledo, in places across this country? And he basically answered the question. I said,
``Please give us your suggestions.'' And he said, ``Well, you know, we ought to tie unemployment compensation to somehow job training so people can be retooled back into the workforce in a very productive way, because I think we could lose the value of the work ethic itself.''
So the issue of training, the issue of education is a very important one, Congressman Garamendi, that you have well outlined there.
Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might interrupt for just a second and pick up on that subject of education. We are now, in this Chamber on this floor in Congress and the Senate, engaging in a debate about how the Federal Government can support these critical educational investments. The proposal that we anticipate being made tomorrow by our Republican colleagues would significantly reduce the funding for the workforce investment boards across the Nation. These are local organizations put together in counties and cities to support reeducating workers who have been laid off from jobs that have gone offshore. Those educational programs, career educational, vocational education programs are crucial to upgrade the skills of our current workforce and the workforce of tomorrow.
So as we go through this debate about deficits versus taxes versus cuts, we need to keep in mind the critical investments that are made every year, and have been for decades, by the Federal Government to support things like education.
{time} 1430
Without education, which is the most crucial of all investments, this Nation cannot compete. So the point you brought up, Ms. Kaptur, is so critically important that the reeducation, the upgrading of skills and the support, I would add, from the Federal Government is going to be debated here.
So watch carefully, America. Watch carefully what is happening here in Congress, and make sure that you participate in this debate. It is not just about balancing the budget; it is about giving Americans the opportunity to get a job, in this case education.
Thank you for allowing me to interrupt.
Ms. KAPTUR. Oh, it is my privilege. I wanted to reinforce what you were saying about education and the Workforce Investment Act. In the counties that I represent, whether it is the Source in Lucas County or One Shop Stopping in Ottawa County, every single county has workforce investment boards that try to connect to our community colleges and institutions beyond high school in order to help people transition into education, as well as those who fall out of the workforce and have to retool.
I was shocked to hear today that on the other side of the aisle, they can't bring up a bill to extend trade adjustment assistance to workers who have been booted out of their jobs because their companies moved to Mexico or to Korea or to China and workers are thrown out of work. That program expires February 13, and they were not able to bring up a bill to extend that for the millions of people across our country who have lost their jobs in manufacturing because they moved abroad. I just think that that is simply unconscionable.
I say to the gentleman that the important issue of linking our community colleges, our apprenticeship programs, our university programs, our GED programs to help people move into, and, frankly, many of our small business programs, to help people move into the private sector is something that is so vitally needed and cannot be done in this economy in areas of high unemployment without the Federal Government partnering with them.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I know that you have spent much time on energy policy issues. It is a critical issue for the Nation's security. It is an issue that really speaks not only to climate change, which some people believe isn't real, but I happen to think it is a fundamental problem facing us and future generations.
But even if you are not into climate change, you have to be aware that we have a very serious energy security issue in the United States, one that really puts our Nation at risk. At any moment we could see the shutdown of the flow of oil from one or another part of the world and, bam, we have got a crisis in America.
We also know that we are shipping off to countries, many of whom are not our friends, $1 billion a day; $1 billion a day of hard-earned American money is flowing offshore as oil from the petro-dictators of the world flows into our country.
So the American energy policy is of profound importance; and all across this Nation, and you have spoken to this also in the past, all across this Nation people are saying, we need an American energy policy that brings our energy sources onshore and gives us the opportunity to capture the green technologies of the future. Solar, solar-wind, solar-
photovoltaic, solar-thermal systems, nuclear, all of these potential energy sources, biofuels, are out there in the future for us if we aggressively put in place the public policies that support the creation of these new technologies and the production of those machines, of those solar systems, of those wind turbines, of those advanced biofuels, produce them, manufacture them in America.
Now, I think you were telling me that in your area there is an effort to build some of these pieces of equipment. Could you share with us what is happening in Ohio?
Ms. KAPTUR. For 25 years we have been trying to give birth to the solar sector, and the Toledo region, northern Ohio, is home to one of the three solar platforms on the continent.
People go, well, but you don't live in California. I said, no, but I historically represent the glass industry, which advanced into the photovoltaic industry. So the hottest act on Wall Street a couple of years ago was First Solar. A company called Xunlight is about to send out its first shipment to Italy this spring. We have other companies, like Kelsey-Hayes, that are in the process of bringing up their factory floors. There is Nextronics, one of the solar inverter companies that is hiring and looking for financing to expand their operation. There are many companies that didn't exist 25 years ago when we started. So I actually have seen what is happening.
But my fear, my fear is that the intellectual property will be stolen; that it will be no different than the automotive industry; that you can't staple it down; that we have to have a balanced trade policy and very tough intellectual property protections. I see your intellectual property proposal up there. I completely agree with that, because if they take our property, our intellectual property, we lose our ability to continue to manufacture and be suppliers globally.
So I wanted to say, Congressman Garamendi, you referenced oil. People say, well, why should we incentivize solar and hydrogen and biofuels and all these sectors, as if we weren't subsidizing the petroleum industry by allowing them to book their royalties or not book their royalties and be charged taxes, as though our entire military establishment wasn't deployed around the globe in order to protect those sea lanes so that petroleum can get in here for refining.
We have to realize we are already subsidizing a sector that is going to be more diminished as this 21st century moves forward. So either you live in the shell of the past, or you break out of it and create a whole new independent America, again, from an energy standpoint; and that is why we need to move.
Mr. GARAMENDI. But let me just add a couple of things. You hit one of my hot buttons there. I am on the House Armed Services Committee, and I asked, how much money do we spend protecting the flow of oil? Well, the Department of Defense didn't come up with an answer, but Rand Corporation, one of the consulting firms, said, I think we can do that.
They came back with a number that is about 15 percent of the total defense budget. So we are talking over $100 billion a year to protect the flow of oil. That is in addition to the $1 billion a day, which is almost what, $365 billion, that we are also sending overseas. So we are looking at somewhere near half a trillion dollars a year because we are, as you said, stuck in the last two centuries' energy policy.
Now, here in this Chamber just a couple of weeks ago standing behind me was the President of the United States; and when he said we should end the subsidies we are giving to oil companies and transfer those subsidies to the energy of the future, the green technologies, I stood up and cheered. My friend, I guess it was my date for the night, is that the word, my date for the night, a good Republican, kind of stood up and clapped his hands, because he is a moderate Republican.
But, nonetheless, it is really true. It is billions and billions of dollars a year that we are subsidizing a very successful industry. We don't need to do that. They don't need our subsidy. They are the richest industry in the world. Fine, end the subsidies, bring that money back and put it into the green energy so that in your area your solar voltaic manufacturers will have the opportunity.
I am going to add just one thing here and keep this microphone for a second. At this moment, tomorrow the House Republicans will put forth their budget which calls for, we anticipate, I hope I am wrong, I will be happy to apologize tomorrow if I am wrong, but it is anticipated that their proposal will terminate many of the tax breaks that are given to encourage solar, wind, photovoltaic, advanced biofuels, all of those new green energy technologies. I hope I am wrong. I really hope I am wrong, because how else can we build our future energy security unless we create the new energy sources? And if we fail, those jobs will be created overseas and we will import.
{time} 1440
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman be kind enough to yield?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. You know, there are some people that live in the past and there are others that are involved in inventing the future. And when you have the major trade deficit category ``imported petroleum,'' and you have marines and soldiers dying all over the world to protect that, pretty soon you begin to think, You know what? This picture has to change.
Every time our country's gas prices go up over $4 a gallon, we go into deep, deep recession. We are trying to crawl out of one just now. And in 2007-2008, gas prices went over $4 a gallon. People forget that. The mortgage foreclosure crisis followed that. But the point was it happened to us again. How many times do our people have to suffer before we realize the source of the problem?
And I had a great experience. I had to go back to the University of Wisconsin, my alma mater, and I gave a commencement address a few weeks ago. It was not a bad speech. It was a pretty good speech. But one of the lines I used was: And America just simply must grasp the future and restore our energy independence. That was the loudest applause I got in this massive audience. And I thought, The American people know it. They know it. We have to do it. We have to make it happen.
Mr. GARAMENDI. The people of America understand that our future lies in a secure energy source.
I'm carrying two bills this year that I actually introduced last year.
I'm going to say good-bye to my good friend from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). Thank you so very much for joining us.
I introduced two bills last year that deal with this issue. Our tax money has, in the past, been used to buy photovoltaic cell systems for houses and businesses, wind turbines, and other green energy equipment that is manufactured offshore so that our tax money is actually used to subsidize businesses and manufacturing that is in other parts of the world. And I'm going, What sense is that? Let's use our tax money to help American businesses who manufacture wind turbines here in America.
In my own district we have two major wind farms, huge operations, producing enormous amounts of power. However, many of those turbines in recent years--and great steel towers, 400 feet high--are made overseas. And yet our tax money subsidizes the importation of the steel towers, the importation of the turbines, and all of the equipment that goes with it. And I say, Time out. Time out. This makes no sense at all.
So, one of the bills that I've introduce simply says that if you want to take advantage of a Federal tax subsidy--which I hope will continue in the future--to put a photovoltaic system on your roof, to install a wind turbine, to do advanced biofuels, or to build a solar thermal system out in the deserts in the West, then it must be American-made equipment. No more buying offshore equipment using our tax dollars. Now, you want to use your own money? I don't care where you get that photovoltaic system or that wind turbine. But if you're using American tax dollars, it must be made in America.
The other piece of legislation is similar. In my own district, one of the transit districts that buys buses and moves people around decided that they needed new buses. Well and good. They're using the local tax dollars. They're using some Federal tax dollars from the gasoline and diesel tax, excise tax that all of us pay when we buy a gallon of gas. It's 18.4 cents. If you're buying diesel, it's 24.4 cents for every gallon you buy. Much of that money goes into building and maintaining our roads. Good. About $3 billion of it a year goes into buying buses and trains and supporting public transportation. Good.
I asked him, Where's the bus being made? Oh, we got a wonderful bus built in Belgium. And I go, No. Don't you understand that in the San Francisco Bay area, one of the very few bus manufacturing areas left in your own area, people who commute on your buses work in that factory, and you're buying a bus from Belgium rather than buying a locally made bus that is just as good?
They said, Well, we like the size of the back window.
There ought to be a law. There ought to be a law that if it's our tax dollars that are being used to buy equipment--buses, trains, planes, whatever--it must be made in America. After all, how can we create and reestablish the great manufacturing sector of America if we simply export our dollars and get a bus--good bus, no doubt about it, has a nice back window--but it's not made in America?
I am very thankful that this Congress, in passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, known as the stimulus bill, put in a provision concerning high-speed rail. Since 1988, when I was in the California Legislature, and together with my colleague here, Jim Costa, we offered legislation then that established the High-Speed Rail Commission in California. We're patient people. It was 23 years ago. But in the Recovery Act there's money for high-speed rail and a provision that says that this money can only be spent on equipment manufactured in America. Good. Wonderful. That's the kind of law we need. We need to support American manufacturers.
Now, they don't build high-speed rail systems in America. They're built in China. They're built in Japan. They're built in the European countries. Good for them. But if they want part of this action, if they want to build the train sets or other pieces of the equipment, then establish your manufacturing plant in America. Come to America.
And I'll note--and I've seen it in the full-page advertisements in Roll Call and Politico--some of these companies are advertising, We'll make it in America. Excellent. Here's where public policy intersects with the private sector to create good middle class manufacturing jobs in America. It's the public policy that sets the stage. Let the businesses go out and build it; but remember, it's public policy.
I'm looking for one of my friends who's supposed to join us here from Iowa, and he may show up, but I want to go back through this again. These are critical public policies that affect the manufacturing sector in America. Trade policies. Fair trade, free trade. There's a difference. It's easy to harm--and Ms. Kaptur talked about this earlier--to harm American workers with trade policies that allow jobs to be shipped offshore without an opportunity for American manufacturers to participate here at home.
Also, this is an issue of currency policy. China. Many people, including me, believe--and economists believe--that China's currency is undervalued by as much as 40 percent. Who's going to be able to compete with China when that kind of currency policy is in place? So we passed a bill here--it didn't pass the Senate; it's being reintroduced and hopefully will go to the Senate and to the President--that forces the Department of Commerce to institute a tariff when these kinds of currency policies persist.
Taxes. We talked earlier about the tax policy of ending tax subsidies for American corporations that ship jobs offshore. That's done. In the tax bill of last year was another incentive for big businesses and small businesses to invest in capital equipment now. It's the law. Capital equipment purchased by a business this year and the last 3 months of 2010 can be written off against profits in the first year; that is, the year in which it is invested. An enormous encouragement to businesses in America to invest in American capital equipment that creates jobs down the way.
I just heard from some farmers in my district that they're out buying irrigation systems, replacing pumps, irrigation pipe, and other kinds of systems because they want to take advantage of that tax law. And so they are encouraging the production of those facilities. We just talked about energy policy at length here, and there's much more to discuss on energy.
The labor issues. We must have a well-educated labor force, and that ties into education. The most fundamental of all investments is education. If we don't have a well-educated workforce, one that's prepared to compete in every sector, this Nation will not be able to compete. So if we want to make it in America, we have got to make sure that our current labor force is trained and retrained to take the new jobs that are going to be created; and for tomorrow's labor force, the men and women that are in school today, that they have the very best education.
It's not happening. This is a great tragedy in America. We are not adequately educating our children. It is a very serious problem. It's pervasive. And in the discussions in this House, in the committees over the next month and a half, this issue is going to come back many, many times as the effort to cut the Federal budget in education goes forward.
I will add that, in the education sector, for those that are in higher education, a very, very important bill passed the Congress, again, without Republican support, signed into law by the President, that would end the subsidy given to private banks to run the student loan programs.
{time} 1450
Those subsidies are over. The money is plowed back into the student loans, increasing the availability of student loans and decreasing the interest rates on student loans--a wise policy that creates a much more efficient Student Loan Program for kids that are in the higher education system.
Discussed by my colleague Marcy Kaptur was intellectual property, which is critically important in California with the high-tech industries--the computer industry and the like.
Then this last one down here, infrastructure, is profoundly important. America moves on infrastructure. It moves on streets and highways, on rails and airlines, and in airports. All of those infrastructure systems are financed, in part, by local governments, by State governments, and by the Federal Government.
One of the very first actions taken in the new 112th Congress was a rule from the Rules Committee that would significantly reduce the availability of money for infrastructure. Once again, as we begin to debate the expenditure, tax and deficit issue, this issue will come back.
So, for Americans, please listen. Listen to what is happening in Washington with regard to the budget issues.
It's not just cut and slash and burn. It's what is the money being used for. What are we using the money for? Are we using it to build our roads, to build our transportation, to build our infrastructure, our water systems, our levee protection/flood protection systems, or are we using it in some wasteful way?
If it's wasteful, don't do it. But if it's a critical investment, what happens if we don't make that investment? What happens if we don't educate our kids? What happens if we don't build the water system or the sanitation system? We have to think about what happens if we don't make these investments.
We also have to think about what happens when we invest over $100 billion a year to fight a war in Afghanistan. Do you want to make a cut? I'll tell you where I'll cut. I'll cut right there. Over $100 billion. What if we took that money, left some in Afghanistan for economic/social development, focused like a laser on the terrorist organizations--some there, some in Pakistan, some in Yemen, some in Somalia, and some in America--but got our military out of Afghanistan and brought that money home and invested in our own infrastructure.
Personally, for me, I live in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We are dependent upon the levees for flood protection, so we go to the Army Corps of Engineers and say, We need to have these systems designed.
Well, we can't do it right now.
Why can't you do it right now?
We don't have the personnel.
Where are the personnel?
Well, they're building things in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Okay, life's about choices.
On this floor, this Congress is going to make some really serious choices in the weeks ahead. Those choices are going to be before us. As this issue of the deficit and as this issue of budget cuts come into focus, what will be cut?
Pay attention to this: When we do a tax policy that gives a $750 billion tax break to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, don't come back to this floor and tell me that that's a good thing but a bad thing to educate our children. When we are on this floor and we want to spend
$100 billion or more fighting what will ultimately be an unsuccessful war in Afghanistan but then tell me that we cannot build our infrastructure to protect our people from floods or that we cannot build our transportation system, it's about choices.
It's about choices, and we're going to make those choices here on this floor.
Over the next several weeks and months ahead, I can guarantee you that the Democratic minority in this House will be talking about this issue of Make It In America, because if America is going to make it, we have to once again make it in America. We have to make sure that General Motors and Ford--the great manufacturing sector of America--is strong and vibrant and that it has the support it needs, that it has the Federal policies in place that support those manufacturing jobs so that it no longer puts American manufacturing at a disadvantage.
So stay tuned. This is going to be a constant thematic that we will be carrying in the weeks ahead because we are determined that the Federal policies will support making it in America.
____________________
