John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Indeed. Mr. Ryan, you come from a part of the world that was and is going to be, given your leadership and the leadership of this Make It in America agenda, the premier manufacturing place in the world. We will contend in California; we will be happy to contend for that and compete for that title, but you are in the process of rebuilding the manufacturing base in the heartland of America.

Mr. GARAMENDI. You talk about innovation and new things. Last week, I was out in my district talking to manufacturers. One company is called Bridgelux--``lux'' I think is light, bridge lighting to the future. They make LED lights. The kind of things that are now in the stores--when you get a flashlight, it's an LED flashlight. They have taken those LEDs to a whole new level of technology and advancement. In fact, if we would put them in these lights here in the Chamber, we could reduce the energy consumption by about 90 percent, which wouldn't be a bad thing for the taxpayers. Their particular system would allow those lights to change color, which might put me in a better color; that wouldn't be such a bad thing, and to dim when people are not here, and move the lights, and in that way improve our ability to see while simultaneously saving us a lot of energy. The company is 2 years old, has 250 employees, is manufacturing these advanced LED lighting systems in Livermore in my district, and I am going, ``Go Bridgelux, go!'' They need something, though. They need access to the American markets. And that is where the use of our tax dollars, in this case perhaps the local tax dollars in the cities around that area, would reach out and save the taxpayers a bundle of money by buying lights from that company.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko. You started with the Erie Canal. It's interesting to note that at that period of time, which was the last decades of the 1700s and the early 1800s, the United States Government set out on a course to build infrastructure, and the infrastructure was the canal systems at that time, and you so quickly and correctly pointed out the growth that came from that. That lesson, now more than 200 years old, needs to be repeated in America once again.

Mr. GARAMENDI. You're from New York, right? The Albany area, upstate New York.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, we just finished a very important debate here on the floor dealing with the ability of the American Government to understand the threats that face us across this world. I want to commend my colleagues both on the Republican and Democratic side for working long and hard on the intelligence legislation that will be up on the floor, probably tomorrow. In the hour ahead, what I would really like to focus on and bring to the attention of the American people is the necessity for jobs. We spend a lot of time talking about security, as we should, and we've certainly seen that in the successful effort to bring down bin Laden and finally see that justice was properly served. Congratulations to the military, to the intelligence community, and particularly to President Obama for his courage in ordering that action, risky to be sure, but ultimately extraordinarily successful. The other part of American security is our economy. At the end of the day and even at the beginning of the day, this Nation will never be secure unless we have a very strong, vibrant, growing economy that provides every American that wants to work with the opportunity to go to work. And so the focus of our attention for this hour ahead is economic security: how to secure the economic well-being of every American, how to secure the economic well-being of the American public. It can be done. There are essentially six elements to achieve economic security and economic growth and strength, and we will cover many of those today as we talk about this issue. Let me very briefly lay them out to you. The first is education. I think we now understand that an individual who has little or no education has very little opportunity to find economic security. It's difficult to get a job if you don't have an education. So for an individual, a good education is essential. Unfortunately across America, report after report, usually every 6 or 7 years a new report comes out and says America at Risk. Our education system isn't measuring up. Yet here in the last 3 months and in the days ahead, my colleagues on the Republican side have consistently cut the education programs that many, indeed millions of Americans depend upon. Back home in my State of California, education funding is similarly cut, so that now a class that 5 years ago was 20 students is now 30 students. At the University of California, 10 years ago it may have cost $1,500 or $2,000 to go to school to pay the tuition. Now it's $8,000. And in the budget that's being proposed that was presented to the Appropriations Committee today, the Republicans are virtually reducing to a point of nonexistence Pell Grants necessary for higher education. So education becomes the first key pillar in building a secure economy for an individual. Similarly, it is the pillar to secure a good growing economy for this Nation, because this Nation will not be able to compete economically unless we have the best educated workforce in the world, and we're not even close today. We were in bygone years, 30, 40 years ago, and we can be in the future, but it's going to take a change. As my colleagues come and join me during this hour, we will be talking about the ways in which the education system can be improved and the way in which we can transition people from education to work and back to education and back to work. The second pillar is research. Research is an essential element, because from that research comes the new products of the future. I think we only need to think about the things that are in our home. The television, the VCR, the other things that we depend upon, were mostly invented in America. The fundamental research for computer chips and the like, America made, and much of the technology that we now find in our green technology, a lot of the wind turbines, the initial wind turbine industry, the solar industry, the photovoltaic and the rest, research in America's great institutions, our universities, our laboratories, led to these kinds of products. The battery technology that we now find in the hybrids, invented in America, but I think most of you would say, but not made in America today. That's true. So what we have seen is that the research, while done in the United States, did not lead to those things being manufactured in the United States. We need to understand why, and we'll go into that today, also. So education, research, and then the third element is making those things in America. Manufacturing matters, and that is the core subject of today's discussion: Make it in America. You can educate, you can research, but ultimately you have to make it in America. Now, there are ways that we can enhance the American manufacturing sector, and my colleagues and I on the Democratic side have put forth a program that we called Make It in America, so that America can make it, so that American families can make it, and we know that these programs that we're proposing will cause that to occur. The remaining three things that we will talk about, not today, but I want to make sure we lay them out there: Education, research, manufacturing, make it in America, the next element is infrastructure. You have to have roads and streets and sanitation and water systems, communications systems. All of those things are critically important. Fortunately, part of the stimulus program, not enough of it, but a big part of it was to build the infrastructure. The largest surge in infrastructure investment ever in the history of this Nation was the stimulus program, overlooked and certainly overlooked in the politics of last year's election, but it was there. It was a good point, but we have to carry that forward. Fifth point. We have to be international. Unfortunately, the word ``international'' in America has come to be that we give it all away. The trade agreements of the past often led to the outsourcing of American jobs, and so, as we look to the future, we want to make sure that as we look international we talk about, as President Obama has suggested, that we once again become an export Nation. We can do that. There are programs that will cause that to happen, and also, we need to be quite sure that when we talk about international we talk about fair trade, trade that is fair to American workers. And so as these trade programs come before us, we will be taking a very hard look at are those programs good for American workers, or are they simply good for Chinese workers. If they are good for those workers overseas and not good for American workers, you can see strong resistance from those of us on the Democratic side who say, wait a minute, international is good. We understand the need to grow markets. We understand the growing markets of the world, but we will no longer allow American workers to be put at a disadvantage by some trade agreement that is not fair to American workers. The final element is this: we have to change. We cannot be what we were yesterday. We have to be what we can be tomorrow, and our President very clearly points this out as he talks about capturing the future. We can but only if we do these six things, and the final one is change. Let me go now to a couple of the specific elements that we need to talk about here. Sometimes it's helpful to put up one of these placards. It helps focus at least my attention and perhaps yours. This is the Make It in America Agenda. These issues we've talked about, trade, tax policy, energy policy. Let's pick up the energy policy here. It is incumbent upon America to secure its energy future. I think all of us go to the gas station from time to time, all too often it seems to me, and you know now we're filling up with $4 a barrel oil. Why? Why did that happen? Well, it basically has happened because for more than 30 years America has talked about energy security. We've talked about ending the importation of oil. We've talked about how we can provide the energy necessary for this Nation. Yet, we now find ourselves in a situation very similar to what we found in the 1970s, that is, insufficient energy available to us. The ``Drill, baby, drill'' mentality that we saw on the floor today is not the solution to this. The solution to the energy issue is to transform our energy systems from the 19th and 20th century energy system, the fossil fuels, where we are dependent upon the petrol dictators of the world, and on coal, which I think all of us have come to understand presents enormous challenges for us, challenges of climate change, challenges of despoiling the surface of the Earth as we now find in the Appalachian Mountains and enormous health risks that come with the burning of coal. We need to move away from these fossil fuels to the fuels of tomorrow. As we do that, we need to use our tax dollars to accomplish this goal. Right now, our tax dollars are used to support the oil industry. The oil industry thinks that is all well and good, but how many of you want to have $4 billion, $5 billion, $6 billion, even $12 billion of your tax money go to the wealthiest, most successful industry in the world as a subsidy? This is oil welfare, plain and simple, to the industry that simply does not need it. We're talking about the wealthiest, most successful industries in the world that have, for a century, for a full century, enjoyed the generosity of the American taxpayer. They receive welfare. Plain and simple, it's a subsidy, to subsidize the oil industry. Yet we know in the last few days the Big Five oil companies have produced record profits in the last quarter. So much so that in the last decade, the decade 2001 until 2010, the oil industry has had over $1 trillion of profit, $1 trillion dollar of profit. At the same time, they have received billions of dollars of subsidies. We need to bring those subsidies back into the Treasury. Tell the oil industry, for a century you have been living off the welfare of the American public taxpayer. No more. That money is coming home. And we're going to use it for two purposes: one, to reduce the deficit. President Obama has suggested about $4 billion a year. I think you can go as high as $12 billion if you add up all of the subsidies, bringing that money back into the Treasury to be used to reduce the deficit and to support industries of the future. We're talking about a lot of money here. Take a look at this. ExxonMobil, $10.7 billion of profit in just the last quarter. Oxychem, $1.6 billion. Conoco, $2.1 billion. Oh, you're going to love this. The CEO of Conoco oil a couple of days ago got in front of a microphone and said it is un-American to take away our welfare, to take away our subsidy. I don't think so. I think it is un-American to give the wealthiest industry in the world a subsidy. We can go on and on here. We see Chevron doing very well. Oh, yeah, BP--we know that bunch. They're the ones that didn't have enough money to safely drill for oil, but they did manage to make $7.2 billion of profit this last year. So, as we look at the energy systems of this Nation, we need to understand that the money that you and I are presently giving to the oil companies as a subsidy needs to be brought back and used to reduce the deficit and to support the energy systems of the future. I'm going to wrap this very quickly with 2 pieces of legislation that I've introduced that would take those subsidies back from the oil industry and apply them to tomorrow's energy systems, the green energy systems, solar, wind. Our tax money should be used to buy American made solar, wind, turbines, and other green technologies. Right now, our tax money, we do subsidize those industries. Our tax money is used to purchase products that are manufactured offshore. My legislation says, good, we need to subsidize. We need to promote those industries. Those are the industries of the future. Those are energy sources of the future. Let's use that money to buy American-made equipment. If somebody wants to go buy Chinese solar cells, fine, use your own money. One of these companies wants to go buy European-made wind turbine, that is fine, do it. But don't use my tax money. Don't use your tax money. American tax money must be used to buy American-made equipment. Similarly, with our gasoline taxes that are now being used to buy buses, trains, and build highways and bridges, great. Good thing to do, but make sure that those things are made in America. Now let me turn my attention to my colleagues. Three of them have joined us. I notice that our minority whip has joined us today. Mr. Hoyer, you've been the advocate, the leader, of developing the Make It in America strategy. Please share with us your thoughts, and then I'm going to turn to my other two colleagues.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Cicilline. And we note that your part of the Nation was where the manufacturing started in America, and the rivers, taking the power of the rivers and using it to start the mills and eventually creating the early American economy and continuing on to this day in a very special part of this Nation, the Rhode Island and the New England area. There are many, many things to say. As you were talking, Mr. Cicilline, and bringing us up to date on how we can do these things, I notice that two of my colleagues came in to join us. Again, Mr. Tonko, you were here for the very first Make It in America discussion, you and I, on this floor some months ago talking about what we can do in this rebuilding the great American manufacturing base, the strength of America, the incredible innovation that's possible, and you just happen to come from one of those areas where it was done and it's still being done.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you so very much, Ms. Jackson Lee. You have been a leader in all of these issues over these many, many years and speak wisely and legislate very wisely on that. The tax issue out there is one that just always befuddles me. It befuddles me as to why my colleagues on the Republican side just don't seem to get the message. We passed a tax bill last year that ended the subsidy that international, multinational companies were given to off- shore jobs. $12 billion a year of our tax money was given to these huge American companies when they off-shored jobs. What was that all about? I still haven't found out where that law came from. But it was in the Tax Code, and American companies were taking advantage of that tax reduction, tax subsidy, corporate welfare to send jobs overseas. We passed a bill. It's over. The President signed it. Not one of my Republican colleagues voted for that. I don't understand. I'm befuddled by their lack of support for American companies who want to keep jobs here. Apparently they're willing to support American companies that want to send jobs offshore. Anyway, one small example. I wonder what it's like to be the mayor of the largest town in Rhode Island. It was probably an enormous experience. And then to bring that experience here to the floor of the Congress and to the committees and to share with us all of that down-home, on-the-ground experience of bringing jobs to the community. Mr. Cicilline, if you would care to share with us some of that experience in the legislation that you've brought to us.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much, Mr. Leader, for what you've done. Mr. Hoyer, you've been on this, actually, longer than I. You have some history in this House that goes way back. I think about a program that you and the Democrats put forward before I arrived. I've only been here now about 20 months. It was the stimulus bill, the American Recovery Act. In that Recovery Act, there was about $12 billion for transportation. In that transportation program, you and the Democrats, signed by President Obama, said that the money had to be spent--and this was the high-speed rail program--on American-made high-speed rail. Guess what happened? Of the high-speed rail companies of the world--none were made in America--the Japanese, the Chinese, the Germans, the French, and the Spanish all began to find American manufacturing plants because they wanted access to the high-speed rail money that was in the stimulus bill. The point here is that, if we use our tax money wisely and say to the world ``come and build a high-speed rail, but you're going to make it in America,'' they will establish those manufacturing plants here in America. It's already happening. In Sacramento, Siemens, and in New York, a couple of the European companies are already locating those manufacturing plants. Sheila Jackson Lee, from the great State of Texas, has now joined us, and she has been on this issue for a long time. So, if you would, share with us your thoughts on how America can make it by making it in America.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you very much for what you are doing, bringing up this critically important issue. As you were saying, nothing is more important than the question of who we are as Americans and our values; what is it that we really care about and how do we structure, how do we create a society that reflects those values. Before 1964, the largest segment of the American population that was in abject poverty were seniors. They had no health care. They couldn't get insurance. They were basically the poor of the poor. But as a result of the fundamental goodness of America, Medicare was created, a medical insurance program for seniors so that they would have available to them doctors' services and hospital services. And it worked. Now, I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years, elected statewide by 34 million people to oversee, to regulate the insurance companies. And in that process we were looking and watching the Medicare program. It wasn't private insurance, but it was part of the health insurance system; and we knew that it worked. It is exceedingly efficient. It works for less than 2 percent. You got a nationwide insurance policy. Wherever you are in America, you get the exact same insurance policy. Doctors know how to bill; hospitals know how to bill. It is efficient; it is effective. It works. More than that, it is an expression of the basic goodness of America. I was surprised, shocked, angered when the Republican budget came forward and proposed that Medicare be terminated for all who want to live to the age of 65. Terminated. Ended. That wasn't all that the Republicans proposed. They proposed that not only would it be terminated, but that all future Medicare enrollees would be given a voucher worth about one-half the cost of insurance and told to go to the insurance companies and buy a policy. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Time out, Mr. Republican. Time out. What are you saying? You are going to take the population that has preexisting conditions--there are very few that are 65 years of age that don't have preexisting conditions--and you are going to turn them over to the most voracious sharks in this Nation, the health insurance companies? No way. No way. They are going to get chewed up, spit out and uninsured, or else charged a small fortune. This is the most un- American, the most inhumane thing that could be imagined for seniors, for tomorrow's seniors. We cannot let it happen. Then, on top of that, in the very next breath they proposed to continue billions of dollars of subsidies, taking money literally out of the pockets of seniors and working men and women and giving it to Big Oil, who happens to have big profits, just as you have on your card up there. Not only Big Oil, but the wealthiest people in America, people whose incomes are $1 million, $10 million, $1 billion a year income, and give them an additional tax break, so that in 10 years it is $4 trillion of tax breaks to the big oil companies and those, not millionaires, but those whose annual income is in the millions. What is going on here?

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Police Officer Christina M. Golez, who is retiring after nearly 27 years of law enforcement service--24 years of service to the City of Fairfield and a combined two years with the Yolo County Sheriff's Department and the Antioch Police Department. As her colleagues, friends and family gather together to celebrate the next chapter of her life, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this outstanding public servant and defender of peace and safety. Christina started her law enforcement career as a Reserve Police Officer with the Antioch Police Department. She was then hired as a Deputy Sheriff by the Yolo County Sheriff's Department in November of 1985 and on August 18, 1986, she was hired as a Police Officer with the Fairfield Police Department. Christina worked in various capacities that included Patrol, Investigations, Youth Services, School Resource Officer, Cadet Advisor, Gang Suppression, Police Probation Team, Crime Scene Investigator, and Property. She received numerous commendations for her performance including Police Officer of the Year for 1997. Christina's two most significant contributions to the Police Department were her expertise as a composite sketch artist and her talent in mentoring youths within the community. Her artistic talent and ability to create like images of suspects has helped solve numerous crimes in Fairfield. Her work as a Cadet Advisor and Diversion Officer was also exceptional. She intervened at many different levels by confronting and challenging youths that were showing destructive behavior through the appropriate amount of counseling and intervention opportunities for them and their families. Christina's work has made a difference to the citizens of Fairfield. Christina was a valued employee and leader and her commitment to the community was evidenced on a daily basis. She was a loyal representative of the law enforcement community and admired for her hard work, dedication, and positive work ethic. Mr. Speaker, I am truly honored to pay tribute to this dedicated public servant. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in wishing Christina M. Golez continued success and happiness in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI. An interesting discussion from my colleague from Colorado. I would note that there are numerous examples where the Federal Government does rely upon outside safety organizations. For example, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations provides safety standards for our nuclear industry, specifically, not allowing the nuclear power industry to do the safety reviews, but, rather, an outside organization. We're simply calling for a level of review that is not associated with those two organizations that caused the problem. The Department of the Interior, and I was the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior in the 90s, has some familiarity of the comings and goings, the shortcomings as well as the strength of that Department. This particular section of the Department of the Interior has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that, over time, it has not been able to regulate properly the safety and other elements of the natural gas and oil industry. We need to provide an outside level of review on the safety requirements, both to keep the Department of the Interior on the proper course and the industry itself on the proper course. That's what the amendment does. I think it makes an eminent amount of sense, and we're really talking about both environmental issues here, that is, the health of environment in the coast, which was seriously compromised, and also the well-being of the men and women that work on these oil platforms. And we know that their fate has been jeopardized in the past and should not be jeopardized in the future. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, both here and later on the floor. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we just heard a pretty good discussion here a moment ago about the safety issues in the gulf. And the legislation before us seems to ignore every one of the recommendations that the bipartisan, independent commission made about how to conduct deepwater drilling in a safe manner. Actually, BP did have a terrible record. I am pleased that my colleague from Texas pointed out the 800 violations that BP had. There was, however, a bit of a problem for at least 11 members of the gulf oil industry: They died as a result of the inattention to safety. The proposal that I have before us deals with one of the recommendations that the commission made, and that is that there be an independent safety organization created to provide an additional level of review of the requirements that drilling be done safely. The legislation before us ignores that recommendation by the commission and basically says that the American Petroleum Institute is quite capable of doing this. Well, the independent, bipartisan commission, said, ``The American Petroleum Institute is culturally ill-suited to drive a safety revolution in the industry. For this reason, it is essential that the safety enterprise operate apart from the American Petroleum Institute,'' and I could not agree more, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would require that, as the Secretary is trying to determine whether permit applications meet the critical safety requirements, he must consult with an independent safety organization, and that organization must not be affiliated with the American Petroleum Institute. Now the institute has said, No problem; we'll create our own. Well, I'm sorry, but that's not the way to provide the appropriate safety standard. We don't need to have more deaths. We don't need to have more blowouts. We need to do the drilling safely, and that it be done in a manner that ensures that lives will not be lost and that oil will not be spilled in the ocean. That's what this amendment does by providing an outside independent organization with the requirement that they consult with the Secretary on the applications. We do not change the 50-day requirement. That remains in place; so there is a timeframe. We don't change any of the requirements with regard to losses and the rest, which I think are inappropriate; but nonetheless, we don't change that in this legislation. I would ask for the adoption of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my dear friend Anne Manfredi Mack, who passed away April 22, 2011. I ask all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the many outstanding achievements of Anne during her lifetime. Anne Mack touched the lives of many with grace and generosity. Anne's driven and compassionate nature laid the foundation for a legacy of inspiration to all who knew her. With great compassion and a heart for service, Anne was a well known and dedicated public servant and longtime advocate for seniors and senior issues. After retiring from Lockheed, she dedicated her time to serving her community and the State of California. In 1998 she was elected to the California State Legislature. Because of her long standing commitment to the Senior Legislature, she was elected chair and had served in this position since 2006. In addition to her service on the Senior Legislature, Anne was a member of various state boards including the Senior Care Commission, Congress of California Seniors, and was Chair of the Advisory Council on Aging. As an impressive 25-gallon blood donor and CPR instructor for over 20 years, Anne had a strong passion and dedication to helping those in her community. Anne's greatest source of pride and happiness, though, was her family--her six children, 12 grandchildren, and seven great- grandchildren that survive her today. Anne always put family first, and will be remembered most for her smile, generosity, and passion for those who were less fortunate. Mr. Speaker, while it is with great sadness, I am truly honored to recognize a woman who has had a profound impact on my wife Patti and me, my family, and on the lives of so many. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in recognizing Anne Manfredi Mack's lifetime of achievements.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Congresswoman and Leader Pelosi. I'll say, ``Speaker.'' Is that okay? We thank you for your leadership. We thank you for your remarks. We have a couple of additional members of our caucus who would like to speak. I think we've claimed the next hour. I believe that it will be available. We're out of time at this point, so I will simply wrap up with these three or four words, which are: It is with gratitude that I and my colleagues congratulate all who were involved in bringing to justice Osama bin Laden. A job well done. Mission accomplished. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Ms. Lee. Your comments are so well taken and so well said. I was thinking earlier when I was talking about the Situation Room and what led up to the actual moment that the program was being carried out, the extraordinary and very difficult decision that the President had to make. But it was a decision that he had made months and years earlier when he spoke to the American people as he was asking them for their vote to become President that he was going to focus like a laser on the man that caused the problem; that he was going to go wherever it may take and do whatever is necessary to settle the score and to bring to justice Osama bin Laden. And when the moment came, when the information was presented and all of the potential disasters that could occur, international relationship issues, loss of men, and even thinking back on the Jimmy Carter incident in Tehran, he stuck by his determination and completed a mission that was accomplished. As you were talking and as I was listening to your very fine presentation, I noticed that an extraordinary leader had joined us here on the floor of the House, a leader who, in her own way, set a very unique circumstance for America--the very first woman Speaker of the House, who led this Chamber and this Nation to accomplish tasks that had not been accomplished in the previous 40 years but which were highly desired by the United States citizens: a health care plan that would provide service to nearly every American, Wall Street reform, and women's rights in the workplace. It was a privilege for me to join during the time she was the Speaker. Now she is the leader of our caucus, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Congratulations on that. Our own tenth grandchild was born just 8 months ago. And I was thinking about them in the context of what has happened this last week and about what we here in Congress, the people's House, representing 350 million, 360 million Americans, about the task that we have to assure that those children of the next generation will have a world that is peaceful, safe, in which they can live out their dreams as we have been fortunate enough to do ourselves. I notice that an extraordinary woman like yourself, Mrs. Capps, has joined us representing the great State of Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee. I think you would like to make some comments on the subject of the extraordinary courage that our President and our intelligence and our military have displayed this last few days.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Representative Capps, thank you for your words. As you were talking, you were talking about families. I remember a discussion you and I had just a couple hours ago as we were sitting here in the Chamber and you told me about the birth of your granddaughter.

Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might take it from there, you reminded me that in the newspapers here in Washington and I think across this Nation, there was what we call an op-ed, an article that appeared on the editorial pages written by the President of Pakistan who congratulated President Obama and the United States for ridding Pakistan of a terrible problem. I thought that that was a remarkable article that he wrote. He noted that his own wife was the target of al Qaeda, not once, not twice, but three times. The final effort resulted in her assassination. So the point that you made about bringing all of us closer together to deal with terrorism, wherever it may be, and whatever rationale it may perceive itself to have, is a threat to every peaceful person and every country that desires peace. Point well made and well taken, Mr. Holt. Thank you so very much for joining us this evening. You're welcome to stick around and join us after we hear from my colleague from the State of California, Lois Capps, who represents the Santa Barbara region of the Golden State.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Holt, thank you very much. A couple of things about your discussion really struck me as being very, very important. You reminded us of the men and women that died not only on September 11, the impact on the community that you represent there in New Jersey, and other communities but also the fact that men and women died in the previous attacks that were sponsored and planned by al Qaeda. You also reminded us that there were men and women not of this country but of other countries, Kenya, Tanzania, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries, that were also the victims of the vicious evil attacks that were planned and carried out by al Qaeda. It's not just Americans that were the targets of this organization. And you also reminded us of the importance of our own first responders and police and others here in the United States. We know that the reach of al Qaeda is not just Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan. It includes Yemen and Somalia and other countries and America, that there are Americans that have been radicalized by the message. We need to deal with that and address those individuals and organizations that may exist within our own country.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Clarke. Your concern about the economy of Detroit and, in a larger sense, the economy of the United States is very, very well founded. There is no doubt that the economic and social strength of America is the foundation upon which every other aspect of the war on terrorism must be fought. We have to deal with our economy. And you're quite correct about the allocation of resources. I notice that New Jersey and Rush Holt, who has been a stalwart in dealing with the policies of protecting America in many ways, energy policy and the rest, has joined us. Mr. Holt, if you would care to join in and share your thoughts on this most important event, the elimination of the world's greatest mass murderer.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Absolutely correct, and I thank you so very much for your participation tonight in honoring and congratulating President Obama and the special operations and the American intelligence community for what they were able to accomplish. Finally, mission accomplished. I'd like now to turn to our new colleague just a little less experienced than myself, Mr. Clarke from the State of Michigan and the city of Detroit.

Mr. GARAMENDI. So what we have here is another way in which the American Armed Forces, in the many different ways, in the case that you talked about, the role of the Special Forces, the special operations, and the SEALs that actually participated, carried out the mission, and the aircraft carrier, and then in between the Air Force and the Army, all of them playing a role. It's an extraordinary example of the way in which military power, properly focused on a very important task, is able to carry it out.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Representative Davis. I share your enthusiasm. Not too long ago, I also represented San Diego but in a different role, not as a Representative but as Lieutenant Governor. Indeed, Coronado is an extraordinary place, and the naval forces that are such a prominent part of San Diego did play a role in this in many, many ways. I was trying to recall whether the aircraft carrier that ultimately did the final burial at sea was stationed in San Diego. I think it was a San Diego aircraft carrier.