John Delaney

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue, for organizing our discussion here today, and for his leadership on so many other important issues here in the Congress, and I like the way he introduced this next segment of our discussions around economic policy because I will spend a little bit of time on that. Mr. Speaker, I am going to start by talking about probabilities and severities--because I think it is important to think about that when we are thinking about climate change--and then move into some market-based solutions that I think work very well with some of the EPA's recent guidance, which I am very supportive of. Let's start with the view of what experts think of this issue. It is estimated that 97 percent of the serious climate scientists in the world believe that climate change is occurring and that human behavior is contributing to this. A friend of mine had a very good analogy for this when he said: If you took your child to 100 physicians and 97 of those physicians said that your child had a condition that needed to be treated, would you wait to get the last three? Or would you act on the advice of 97 percent of the physicians? That is effectively what we have with respect to the advice that serious climate scientists have with respect to the two questions as to whether is climate change happening and is human behavior contributing to it. Secondly, there is a body of work around what are the consequences if climate change were to continue, and it is similarly overwhelming in terms of the view that, if it were to occur, the costs, both moral-- right, in terms of the stewardship of our planet, but we will put that aside for a second--and financial, are very significant. If you look at the United States, if you look at costs associated with weather--extreme weather along our coasts, extreme weather in the Midwest, droughts in the west, fires that are being caused from that, disruption in people's lives, costs to the Federal Government, these are very, very significant costs. That is not even counting the geopolitical costs associated with continued climate change. A very large percentage of the poor people in the world live at or below sea level. The effect that rising tides will have in disrupting their lives, we should understand will have a very significant geopolitical implication. So let's think about the probabilities and severities. There is some chance--I view it very small, but some chance--that 97 percent of climate scientists are wrong, that, in fact, nothing is happening. I view that as a 10 percent probability. So whatever we do, the changes in our behavior have to be measured against the 10 percent of the probability. There is an overwhelming likelihood that the scientists are right. That is why 97 percent of them agree. The fact that they are in accord on this issue would make me think, from a probability-weighted basis, that there is an 80 percent probability that they are right. Then there is probably a 10 percent probability that they are wrong the other way, that they are seriously underestimating the effects of climate change, and it could accelerate, and the consequences are actually much greater than we had believed. So if you add up all of those probabilities and multiply them by the severities, you come to a view that this could be one of the central generational challenges of this era, in terms of addressing this issue from a both moral and economic perspective. I think my colleague from Maryland framed it well when he talked about the economic opportunities because I think we have been presented with a false choice. The choice has been act on this issue, act against the advice of 97 percent of the climate scientists, or, you know, ruin our economy if we do that; and that is the choice we have been presented with. That is fundamentally not the right choice because, if you have a view that the evidence will continue to mount, you have to assume that, ultimately, humans--both in the United States and around the world-- will react to this issue. That is the logical assumption. If that logical assumption turns out to be true, then we should assume that, in 25 to 50 years, the way this world--and this country in particular--but the way this world produces energy, distributes energy, utilizes energy, and conserves energy will be very, very different than it is today. As a businessperson, I look at that, and I say big, big opportunity. It is a big opportunity to be the leader in energy production, energy distribution, energy conservation, and energy utilization. So there is a concept in business known as the first mover advantage. The person who reacts first gets the best technology, gets the best experts, gets the best insights, and that is what I believe, as a matter of economics, this Nation should be doing. As someone who believes the power of markets is very significant to change behavior--in fact, I believe there are only two things that really change human behavior: one is their faith, and the other is financial incentives. We have an opportunity, I believe, as it relates to climate change to not only get the faith community behind this issue--which I believe they will, the faith community cares deeply about the stewardship of the planet, God's greatest gift to us. I believe in the future, we will see the faith community--and it is already there, to a very significant extent--getting behind this more. I also think there are things that we can do in terms of creating the right financial incentives to change the behavior. I believe things like a carbon tax, where you create a market-based solution and you tax something that we fundamentally shouldn't like--carbon--in exchange for taxing things we should like--like human beings and profits--is a better scenario for our country going forward, which is why, in combination with the new EPA regulations, we are introducing something called the State's Choice Act. What the State's Choice Act does is require the Federal Government to give every State in this country another option. It is not a requirement. It is an option, and if the State decides to put in place a carbon tax, where they tax something we shouldn't like today--and I am sure we definitely will not like in the future, which is carbon emissions--and they can take the revenues from that carbon tax and deploy them against any priority they have, including lowering other taxes in their State, if a State puts in place a carbon tax, then they are deemed in compliance with the EPA regulations. So it is providing States with an option--not a requirement, an option--to put in place a mechanism--a market-based mechanism in lieu of a regulatory framework. Environmentalists believe a carbon tax is the best solution because they understand that financial incentives change behavior most significantly. Business broadly believes this is the right solution because it is a market-based approach. In fact, the largest energy company in the world, ExxonMobil Corporation, disclosed something last year that I viewed as very consequential, that they will begin, in their financial assumptions--so in other words, when ExxonMobil projects the future and their business against those projections, they are assuming that, at some point, there will be a social cost of carbon imposed through some form of taxing system. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that ExxonMobil is, today, making business decisions based on the fact that that will happen. Most major corporations, most of the Fortune 500 is doing the same thing. They see where this is going. I believe that, when government and the private sector work well together, we get the best outcomes. So when you see policymakers and people who care about climate change saying their carbon tax approach is the right answer and when you see the overwhelming majority of the Fortune 500 believing a carbon tax is the right answer, I think we should be embracing market-based solutions, which is what we are trying to do with this State's Choice Act. We applaud the actions of the EPA. This is a serious problem for the reasons I discussed earlier, and I think their actions, particularly in the absence of other actions coming out of Congress, are the right answer. We believe this is a great opportunity to also start the conversation around market-based solutions, which is why we would like to give every State in this country the option to pursue a market-based solution in exchange for a regulatory solution. This is an incredibly important topic. Again, I want to thank my colleague for organizing us here today and giving me the opportunity to comment on my views on this.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of my constituent, Warren Weinstein, who has been held captive by al Qaeda for over 1,000 days. This past week, the headlines have been dominated by the release of Bowe Bergdahl. But these headlines should also remind us that there are other Americans held as prisoners overseas. Warren is a loving husband, a father, and a grandfather. He is 72 years old. Recent videos released by al Qaeda show him in bad and deteriorating health. This is a man of peace and of love. He has dedicated his life to public service, starting with the Peace Corps up until his service with USAID, which is what he was doing in Pakistan when he was captured 4 days before his scheduled return. I have written the administration and encouraged them to use all means available to bring Warren home. This week, I will be introducing a resolution in the House encouraging them to do the same for Warren and for every American held overseas. We must not forget these Americans. We must bring them home. Warren, today you are not forgotten by this Congress or this country.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases funding for Pay for Success within the existing evidence-based Justice program account by a modest $1 million. While it is a modest number, it does increase the account by 5 percent, which we think is important, and we think it is important for two reasons--first, as it relates to the merits of the program; but, secondly, as we think the government should be embracing the Pay for Success framework across all aspects of government services. We believe this for three reasons. First, the Pay for Success model has been proven--and we believe it will continue to prove out--that it delivers a better service to our citizens. It does that by encouraging innovation and best practices within government. The method it uses to do that is a unique partnership model within which the government partners with the private sector or with the philanthropic sector in developing specific programs that are designed to have better outcomes at lower costs. That is the first reason we like the Pay for Success model. The second reason we like the Pay for Success model is that the model encourages the development of better metrics and of the better tracking of outcomes, which encourages creativity and the advancement of best practices within the government sector. The third reason that we like the Pay for Success model is that it is very taxpayer friendly. By definition, under a Pay for Success framework, the government is only paying when certain predetermined outcomes are, in fact, delivered. In addition to putting the government in a position in which it is only paying when outcomes are, in fact, met, it also encourages, through the process of the development, not only more effective methods, but more cost-effective methods. For all of these reasons, we encourage Pay for Success generally across government services. In this particular program, we think the additional $1 million, while modest, will encourage the development of innovative programs that are designed to reduce the burdens on our prisons. I encourage the passing of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding me this time to stand up, rise, and speak out against Mr. Ryan's budget. While I have many significant policy objections that are embedded in Mr. Ryan's budget, my main objection is based on the fact that the budget is built upon a fundamentally flawed analytical framework. I think it is important to focus on that when we think about budgets, Mr. Chairman. The fundamental driver--or the goal of the Ryan budget is to have our deficits at zero in 10 years. I believe Mr. Ryan does this because he thinks it is good political optics, and it sounds good. The problem with this goal is it is fundamentally, economically and fiscally, the wrong goal. It is unnecessary, and it is unrealistic. It is unrealistic based on the fact of the demographics the country is facing. We are somewhere through the midway of this aging of the population that we like to talk about, Mr. Chairman, where the population of people over 65--our citizens over 65 will double from 1980 to 2020 to 2030. This puts tremendous burdens on the Federal Government. But it is also an unnecessary goal. A zero deficit is an unnecessary goal if you think about the basic math of deficits and debt. The reason our debt has grown to such a significant level in this country is because, for the last several years, our deficits, as expressed as a percentage of the economy, have exceeded the economic growth on an annual basis for the economy. The math of that results in a growing debt, which is problematic. Unless we change the direction of our debt, we will have very limited financial flexibility in the future, particularly if interest rates go up; but, in fact, if we get our deficits to a rate below the rate of growth in the economy, then definitionally, the debt in this country will go down. Most experts agree that we should be targeting deficits of 1 to 2 percent and economic growth of at least 2 to 3 percent. That will cause our debt to go down to historical levels and give this country the financial flexibility that it needs. So if you seek an unrealistic goal or if you seek the wrong goal in budgeting and forecasting, you are forced to overcorrect. There are two ways to overcorrect in budgets--or at least in the Federal budget. The first way you can overcorrect is to raise taxes to an excessive level. The second way you can overcorrect is to cut spending to unrealistic levels. Mr. Ryan, obviously, doesn't choose to raise taxes. In fact, he cuts taxes which, again, is an unusual and puzzling conclusion, particularly based on the fact that our tax revenues as a percentage of the economy across the last several years have been lower than the historical 50- year average for this country. So to think that we should be cutting taxes against that backdrop, again, is a puzzling decision, but since he chooses to cut taxes, he is then forced to overcorrect on the spending side. To put this into perspective, in very, very simple perspective, the Ryan budget takes discretionary spending, things like education, infrastructure, and investments in basic medical research, to 1.7 percent of our economy. This is in the context of a historical average for these same investments of 3 percent. We can't really talk about growing or shrinking numbers in absolute dollars; we always have to talk about these numbers, if we want any kind of budget integrity, in terms of a percentage of the economy. He effectively cuts in half our investments in infrastructure, education, and basic medical research as a percentage of the economy as compared to the 50-year average. That is the overcorrection he does because he is trying to achieve a goal that is both unrealistic and unnecessary. It is not clear to me, Mr. Chairman, someone who has spent his whole career in the private sector building companies, how anyone with reasonable cognitive abilities would think, in light of the challenges this country faces to create jobs, as we have discussed, to compete in a global economy and to transfer our economy based on what is happening with technology, that it is the right answer--that it is the right answer to cut our investments in research, in infrastructure and education by half. That is the fundamental flaw in the analytical framework that is embedded behind Mr. Ryan's budget, which only reinforces my conclusion that this is a political document; this is not a substantive document. This is not a document that was created by looking at the facts, thinking about economics, understanding how deficits and debt interrelate and what we need to actually make this country competitive, create jobs, and put ourselves on a long-term fiscally sound trajectory.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. I thank my good friend from Oregon for your really singular leadership on this issue and your unwavering commitment to make sure these problems get solved. Mr. Speaker, every 2 years, the American Society of Civil Engineers does an analysis of the U.S. infrastructure needs and an assessment of our infrastructure as it relates to our competitors around the world. In this last analysis they did, they produced a report card, where they graded each component of U.S. infrastructure. They also gave us a composite grade, and that grade was a D-plus. A D-plus, Mr. Speaker, was the grade that the U.S. infrastructure received from the American Society of Civil Engineers. They estimated further that the amount of investment we would need to make as a country to bring our infrastructure up to a high standard is $3 trillion to $4 trillion. $3 trillion to $4 trillion, Mr. Speaker, is the gap, the investment gap in the infrastructure in the United States of America. This creates a very significant challenge for us as a Nation, as we look to compete in a global and technology-enabled world. To successfully compete in a global and technology-enabled world, you need world-class transportation, energy, communications, and infrastructure to be able to compete successfully. It also creates a great opportunity for us, as a Nation, because investing in our infrastructure is proven to be one of the great jobs programs in this country. It creates middle-skilled jobs. Infrastructure disproportionately creates middle-skilled jobs, which is what we need in this country. We are actually creating high-skilled jobs at a decent rate, we are creating low-skilled jobs at a decent rate; but we are not creating middle-skilled jobs for middle-class Americans, the kind of Americans that built this country, saved this country, and saved the world, and that is a great tragedy. Investing in our infrastructure will do that. It also happens to pencil out, Mr. Speaker. Across time, the data strongly suggests that for every dollar we spend on infrastructure, we get $1.92 of economic benefit as a Nation. It will create jobs in the short term, it will make us more competitive in the long term, and it is a fundamentally good investment for us to make as a country. As we think about filling this infrastructure hole, we should analyze how we actually invest in infrastructure in this country, and there are really four ways we do it. First, government. Federal Government, State governments, and local governments actually grant money to build infrastructure, particularly infrastructure that is used for the public or common good. That is an important role of government, and government is unique in its ability to do that. The second way we build infrastructure is through financing it with user fees. Things like the highway trust fund that my colleague referred to have largely been financed through our gas tax. There are other examples, at airports, et cetera, where we charge user fees, and that money is collected, and we build infrastructure with it. The third way we build infrastructure in this country is through public-private partnerships, where we go to the private sector, and for certain types of infrastructure, we get the private sector to build the infrastructure. Finally, the fourth way we build infrastructure is we finance it. In other words, State governments and local governments borrow money to build infrastructure. These are the four ways we build infrastructure in this country. If we actually want to close this infrastructure investment gap that we have, if we actually want to close this $3 trillion to $4 trillion gap, if we want to bring our infrastructure from a D-plus grade to something we would be more proud of, like an A grade, we need to be bolstering all four of these methods. The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that there are bipartisan ways of doing all of these things, and that is what we need to focus on. One example of a bipartisan solution to this problem is a piece of legislation that I introduced with several colleagues almost a year ago. It is called the Partnership to Build America Act. The Partnership to Build America Act, as of today, has 29 House Republicans on it and 29 House Democrats on it. It was also introduced in the Senate about a month ago with a dozen Senators, also bipartisan. Right now, Mr. Speaker, the Partnership to Build America Act is the most significant piece of bipartisan economic legislation in the whole of the Congress, and what it does is it creates a large-scale infrastructure financing vehicle called the American infrastructure fund, which will be capitalized for 50 years and be used by States and local governments to build and finance infrastructure. The money in the American infrastructure fund, Mr. Speaker, is not put in by the Federal Government, but it is put in by corporations who invest and buy very low-cost bonds to finance the American infrastructure fund over 50 years. As an incentive to get them to put this money in, we allow them to bring back a certain amount of their overseas earnings--their overseas cash back to the United States tax-free. Almost half of corporate tax is sitting overseas because of flaws in our international tax system. This allows for over $200 billion of that money to come back, a quarter of which would have to be invested in the American infrastructure fund, and create a 50-year revolving financing vehicle to help close this gap. So, Mr. Speaker, the Partnership to Build America Act is a real example of bipartisan progress to solve an important problem facing this Nation, to get Americans to work, make us more competitive in the long term, and use our precious resources in a wise and prudent manner that pencils out. It will be the category killer for the financing challenge we have around infrastructure. So, Mr. Speaker, I will close by reminding everyone of the importance of this issue. Investing in our infrastructure should be our top domestic economic priority. It should be our top jobs program. We should be bolstering all the ways we have in this Nation to build our infrastructure; and the good news, Mr. Speaker, is we can do it in a bipartisan way. I yield back to my friend from Oregon.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and honor Captain Christopher Mercer, USN, for his incredible courage and bravery on September 16, 2013 during the Navy Yard Shooting. Captain Mercer served admirably, as he both ensured the safety of himself and three others during the shooting, and helped the police in their efforts, all while trapped inside of his office in the Navy Yards Building 197. His incredible courage should not be left in vain. I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues help me in honoring Captain Christopher Mercer, USN, for his distinguished acts of courage during the Navy Yard Shooting on September 16, 2013. Captain Mercer is a hero for his acts on that day, and should be recognized for his remarkable bravery.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me this time this afternoon and for her leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, today marks that historic day, the 50- year anniversary of President Johnson declaring a formal war on poverty. And on such a day, we must take note of the progress we have made and remind ourselves of the work that has to be done. Across 50 years, if you take into account the effects of programs this government has put in place to target those on poverty, we have significantly reduced the rate of poverty. We have in particular reduced the rate of poverty for our seniors. These facts are first evidence of the notion that the government can make a difference against this problem. But we also know that more has to be done. Fifty million Americans live in poverty, including about a quarter of which are our children, our most vulnerable citizens, children who have their whole lives in front of them and are struggling in poverty. We must make a difference against this, and to do that we must do three things. First, we need to continue to fund the programs that are proven to make a difference in the lives of those living in poverty like food stamps, like funding Head Start. Second, we need to raise the minimum wage in this country. Right now in 2014, in the wealthiest country in the world, in many States if you work 40 hours a week and earn the minimum wage, you live below the poverty line. That just doesn't pass the look-yourself-in-the-mirror test. The minimum wage for decades has significantly trailed the growth in our economy. We need to raise the minimum wage. That will make a meaningful and impactful difference in the lives of those struggling in poverty. And, finally, we need to create jobs. Jobs are the most direct way to lift people out of poverty; and through a job, people have personal dignity. To make a difference in the jobs crisis in this country, we need to invest in education across the long term. That will make a disproportionate difference in terms of the number of people living in poverty. But in the short term, we need to do things to get people to work now, like investing in our infrastructure. This is very important work for us to do, Mr. Speaker. I will close by reflecting on some of the words of President Johnson. He said this fight would not be short and easy, and he was right. We have been at this for 50 years. He also said no single weapon would suffice, and he was right about that as well. We need to be raising the minimum wage. We need to be investing in jobs. We need to be funding critical programs like food stamps and Head Start. And then he said that we must not rest until this war is done. And to honor the tens of millions of people who have lived unfortunately in poverty over the last 50 years and the tremendous number of people who have fought this battle, and to live up to the standard of our maker, we must recommit ourselves to this battle.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Coach Mike Neubeiser and the Northwest High School football team of Germantown, Maryland, who won the Maryland Class 4A State football championship on Friday, December 6th. With a 33-16 victory over Suitland High School, the Northwest Jaguars capped off a 12-2 season. This is Northwest's first state football championship since 2004 and the first state championship for a Montgomery County high school since 2008. Even though Coach Neubeiser's team started the season with two loses in their first eight games, the Jaguais turned their season around to win the state title. This improbable turnaround proves that even when faced with adversity, Coach Neubeiser and his staff can inspire these young adults to accomplish great things. Thanks to his leadership, Northwest student-athletes have exceled both on the field and in the classroom. I wish the Northwest Jaguars the best of luck next season as they defend their title. I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues help me in honoring this significant accomplishment.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Coach Todd Appel and the Fort Hill High School football team of Cumberland, Maryland, who won the Maryland Class 1A State football championship on Saturday, December 7th. With a 25-0 victory over Douglass High School, the Fort Hill Sentinels capped off a perfect 14-0 season. This is Fort Hill's third state football championship in their school's history and the first since 1997. Throughout the 2013 regular season and playoffs, the Sentinels dominated their opponents. In the playoffs, competing against the best teams in the state, the Sentinels outscored their opponents by an impressive 162-13 margin. In his sixth year as head coach, Coach Appel has compiled a 66-11 record. Throughout this success, Coach Appel has proven to be not just a great coach, but a trusted mentor to many young adults in Allegany County. Thanks to his leadership, Fort Hill student-athletes have exceled both on the field and in the classroom. I wish the Fort Hill Sentinels the best of luck next season as they defend their title. I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues help me in honoring this significant accomplishment.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. I want to thank the ranking member for yielding. I also want to thank Chairman Miller and the rest of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their support during this committee process. The Veterans Affairs Committee does some of the most important work here in Congress and has long been applauded as a place where both parties work together. In that vein, our bill, H.R. 2011, the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education Improvement Act, is bipartisan legislation which I was pleased to introduce with my colleague from Ohio, Congressman Renacci. H.R. 2011 is commonsense legislation designed to improve the VA's education and job training programs, and I am proud that it is being considered on the House floor today. Mr. Speaker, one of the real privileges of our work in Congress is getting to meet so many dedicated servicemen and veterans and learn about the incredible work they have done to keep our country safe and defend our way of life. Likewise, in our district work, one of the most essential services in our offices is to provide help to veterans so that they can earn the benefits that they deserve. When we travel across our districts, what we see is the deep appreciation the American people have for her veterans. There is a reverence for their heroism and gratitude for their service. Mr. Speaker, the American people feel strongly that our veterans deserve to be repaid for their service. I believe that one of the most significant commitments that we can make to these servicemen is their education. Going back to 1944, with the first GI Bill, we have joined together as a Nation and said that when our veterans come home, they are going to be able to receive the education they need. In today's high-tech global economy, that commitment is more important than ever. The veterans' unemployment rate is too low, especially for post-9/11. To give our veterans the best chance to succeed, we need to make sure that they have a choice in the VA, we need to make sure that our current benefit programs are working, and we need to make sure that our veterans' education programs are adapting to an ever-changing world. Mr. Speaker, this legislation does two very important things. First, it reauthorizes the Veterans Advisory Committee on Education through 2015. Absent congressional action, the Veterans Advisory Committee on Education will sunset this December. Second, this legislation updates the U.S. Code to ensure that the committee includes post-9/11 veterans. There are over 2 million post-9/ 11 veterans in the United States, and their perspectives need to be heard on the committee and at the VA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to note that H.R. 2011 is supported by numerous important veterans organizations, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, the Student Veterans Association, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I can't think of better endorsements than these. Helping our veterans transition to civilian life is one of the most critical challenges facing our country. These men and women are truly our country's heroes, and they deserve a world-class education. Our constituents feel strongly that this is something that we get right. I thank the ranking member for his time, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No.: 478--I would have voted ``no,'' 479--I would have voted ``no,'' 480--I would have voted ``no,'' 481--I would have voted ``no,'' 482--I would have voted ``no,'' 483--I would have voted ``no.'' Unfortunately, I had a serious medical family matter that required my attendance this morning. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 478. personal explanation

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 429, the Connolly/Kildee amendment 3, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. DELANEY

Mr. DELANEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DELANEY. Madam Chairman, my amendment responds to a common dilemma facing our military families, a dilemma that is deeply unfortunate, but easily solvable. When our warfighters and veterans head to the hospital, their families often face a choice between being there or paying their bills. This means that too often our military heroes are in the hospital alone without the support of their family. They deserve better. This amendment will increase funding for Fisher Houses, which provides free housing for the families of patients receiving care at military and VA hospitals. This additional funding is offset by a corresponding reduction to the defense-wide operation and maintenance account. Thanks to Fisher Houses, when our heroes are in the hospital, their families have a place to stay. Thanks to Fisher Houses, when our military families need our support, we lend them a helping hand, a home away from home. This program is not only compassionate, but it's cost effective. Since 1990, over 180,000 families have been served by Fisher Houses, saving military families over $200 million. However, you can't put a price tag on the emotional, psychological, and spiritual value these homes provide. After 2 years, we have seen resources strained and backlogs develop. We can't expect better results without improving our support structure. This amendment would lead to the construction of at least four new Fisher Houses next year. Four new homes means lodging for 2,000 military family members. That's 2,000 sons, daughters, wives, husbands, brothers, and sisters that can be by the side of our military heroes during their most significant time of need. No veteran, no servicemember should head to the hospital alone. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELANEY. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. DELANEY. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues and the support of my colleagues. As I have no other comments, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELANEY

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 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. DELANEY. That's right. And the estimates are up to almost $2 trillion of cash.

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. 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. 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 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. 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. DELANEY. You would have the largest allocation.

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. DELANEY. We all build on each other's ideas.