John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, it's often said that the facts are lost in the fog of war. The facts are lost in the fog of this debate. We should step back for just a few moments and see what this total picture is all about. This is nothing about a class war assault on the working men and women and the poor in this country, and literally around the world. Take a look at all of the provisions and add them all up. The decimation of clinics that provide care to the poor and the unemployed. The decimation and the significant reduction of Medicaid, providing care to those who do not have high incomes, including the elderly and the disabled. The decimation now in this of the health care proposals, turning over to the insurance companies once again the opportunity to go after working men and women and deny them the coverage that they need. Taken in total, and include the tax provisions for the great wealthy who will ultimately have their tax breaks paid for by the working men and women, put it all together, and this is class warfare by the Republicans against the working men and women of this Nation.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I had not intended to get into this particular debate.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, the amendment before us is a start. Eighteen million dollars out of $720 billion is a start. You might take it one step forward and let's end the war in Afghanistan where we're spending $120 billion and another $30 billion or so in Iraq. Now we've got some real money to talk about. Because this is a start, I find that it's an unworthy start, and, therefore, I oppose the amendment. However, the real issue before America is not how we can slash and burn in foolish ways that actually lose tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, indeed a million jobs in the next 7 months, which is the proposal before us with this continuing resolution that the Republican Caucus has put on the floor. It seems to me that if we wanted to create jobs, we certainly wouldn't, as a first step, lose a million jobs in virtually every sector of the economy: Teachers that are providing services for the early childhood education programs, Head Start, they'll lose their jobs. Firefighters; 2,400 or more of them will lose their job across the Nation. The COPS program, which has provided jobs for police in our cities, they'll lose their jobs, some 1,300. They just had men and women from my own district come in and say, Why would they want to do that? Why would they want to take cops off the street? I told them, I don't know. I don't understand. I don't understand this CR. It is the most foolish, nonsensical slash-and-burn I have ever seen. I was in the Department of the Interior in the mid nineties when we actually reduced in a thoughtful way over a 4-year period of time the number of employees by some 12,000--from 90,000 down to the 70,000 range. We did it. And we continued to do the services. But you don't slash and burn. You don't just in a wholesale manner carry out a political promise of $100 billion and foist it upon the American public in this way where we lose a million jobs, where we lose critical services. California has been in a water war for generations. We rely upon the Bureau of Reclamation. We rely upon recycling. We rely upon these programs. And yet you slash those, and those are real jobs and real programs to deal with the water problems in the West. Why would you do that? What's the point of that? Why would you go into programs where we need to educate? My daughter is a second grade teacher. She now has 32 kids in her elementary program; an almost impossible situation. And your cuts that you're proposing will make that situation worse. She cried out to me this week, Why are they doing that, Dad? I said, for some political promise made in a campaign without any thinking about the impact that it has on real human beings, real students, who are trying to get an education. My final point is this. There are five things that lead to true economic growth. The best education system in the world, and so this CR cuts education. The best research in the world, and so this CR cuts research programs in science, in energy, in health care. The best infrastructure, and this CR cuts infrastructure expenditures. Manufacturing matters; we have to make it in America. You cut out those programs that assist manufacturing. And, finally, we know that we have to have an energy policy and you destroy the beginnings of a green energy, self-sustaining energy program in this Nation. Why would you do so many foolish things? I don't get it. Perhaps it's because your real agenda is the no-jobs agenda. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I was so pleased to hear my colleague a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, talk about firemen. However, the continuing resolution that is now before this House would lay off 1,333 firemen across this Nation. It would also lay off 2,410 firefighters across this Nation. We're now into the sixth week of the Republican control of this House, and yet we have no jobs; but instead of a jobs bill, we have a jobs layoff bill. The continuing resolution will lay off tens of thousands, indeed, hundreds of thousands of men and women all across this Nation, from firefighters to cops to construction workers; 76 projects that are going to be built and infrastructure will be canceled. We're looking at 200,000 young children that will not be in the Head Start program, which means their teachers and the others that are running those programs will be laid off. This is the most anti-jobs bill I could possibly imagine; and here we are in the 6 weeks, no jobs, just job layoffs.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. As I listen to this debate this evening, Mr. Speaker, I find myself wanting to focus on jobs, but what I just heard makes my blood boil. I was the Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior while the rapers and pillagers of the public land wanted all regulations to disappear. They wanted to have open hunting for minerals, for oil, for gas and coal on all public lands. And you talked a moment ago about the pulling of that permit for that coal mine. They would, in that permit, level the hills of Appalachia, flatten them, ruin the streams, destroy, destroy, destroy. The regulations are there for a reason. They are there to protect the precious environment of America. And if it is your intent to do away with those regulations, then know this: You will have a fight on your hands. You will have a fight on your hands when you try to do away with the regulations that protect the men and women on those drilling rigs from the extraordinary accidents that happen in deepwater drilling. But, my purpose here tonight is different. My purpose here tonight is to ask why it is that the Republican majority has spent 5 weeks, 5 weeks leading this Congress, and not created one bill that creates one job, not one. Five weeks, zero jobs. You ran on jobs. Where are your job bills? Your regulations are hiding--this whole debate is hiding something, because, as we speak, here you are in the process of figuring out how to cut $100 billion out of the Federal budget for the next 7 months. What does that mean? It means that national parks will close. It means that the clean water people that came to my office today will have no money, no money to build the sanitation systems and provide clean water for their citizens in the rural communities that you were just talking about. What is this about? This is about hiding the ball. This is about wasting our time. When we ought to be talking about jobs, instead, you are hiding a $100 billion cut that will displace hundreds of thousands of workers in the next 7 months. That's what this is about. We're talking about hiding the ball when it comes to the men and women that maintain those very places you talk about out there in the great western lands. You're hiding the bill about the cuts you are going to make to education, for the teachers that will lose their jobs, for the janitors, for the bus drivers, for those people that are now employed that will lose their jobs as you attempt to put those cuts in place. This is about jobs. The Democrats are talking about jobs. We're talking about making it in America. We're talking about those solar projects. Yes, we're talking about who's going to win the next energy, the next energy systems for this world. It's not coal. It's not oil. It's the green renewable energy and nuclear. That's what we're talking about on our side. We're talking about how we can do that. And you're talking about wasting 9 hours of precious time on this floor doing what you've already done. You've already issued the edicts of what you are going to do in this committee. I received it 2 weeks ago. You're going to explore this; you're going to review that. Two weeks ago you told me, a new member of this committee, what you intend to do, and now you're wasting our time on this floor when we ought to be talking about jobs. We ought to be talking about China getting ahead of us on tomorrow's energy, wind, solar, solar thermal, all of those things. But no, no, we're going to talk about what you've already done. You did it 2 weeks ago. Why are you wasting our time when Americans want jobs, when Americans want solid legislation like Make It In America, using our tax money to buy solar and wind equipment that is manufactured in America? Why don't we talk about that? Why don't we talk about using our money, our tax money that we pay every day at the gasoline pump, about American-made buses and trains? But no, we're going to talk about regulations. You already have told us what you're going to do. Let's talk about creating jobs. That's what we ought to be doing here. We ought not be wasting our time doing what you've already done. You've told us what you're going to do. And, by the way, if you think for a moment you can do away with those regulations that are protecting America's precious resources and lives, know this: You've got a fight. You've got a fight that you lost in the 1990s. You lost it in the 2000-2008 period, and you will lose that fight because we are about creating good, healthy jobs in America that do not destroy the American environment.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. That's true.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I was on my way out the door when I realized that this Special Order was going to be on President Reagan, and as I was walking out the door, I recalled a picture that's been on my family's wall for a long time. It was a picture of President Ronald Reagan. I'm kind of standing to one side, and he's bending over, and he's shaking the hand of my daughter. It was in the White House. This was in the 1980s when I was in the California legislature. Embodied in that picture is so much the character of Ronald Reagan, the smile, the bright eyes, the enthusiasm, greeting a young girl. She was about 7 years old at the time, and you can just see that he wanted to spend that moment with her and to give to her his enthusiasm for life, his enthusiasm for America. That picture has always been there, and every now and then some of my Democratic friends, including the President, see it; what's that doing in this house? And I say, that's a very special moment in the life of my daughter Christina. But that's the way Ronald Reagan was. I was in California when he became the President and actually came into the legislature the day he left office, and he set the stage in California for much of what is good there, and he certainly did that for America, also. So I join with my colleagues on the Republican side and colleagues on the Democratic side to say a very special man, a very special man in the life of America and a very special man in my life and in my daughter's life. Thank you for the time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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. 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.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

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.

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?

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. 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.

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.

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. 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?

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Lieutenant Robert D. Bunting, who is retiring after 27 years of law enforcement service--21 and a half years of service to the City of Fairfield and five and a half years with the Calistoga Police Department. As his colleagues, friends and family gather together to celebrate the next chapter of his life, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this outstanding public servant and defender of peace and safety. Robert started his law enforcement career as a Police Officer with the Calistoga Police Department. He was then hired as a Police Officer with the Fairfield Police Department on June 12, 1989. As an officer, he worked in various capacities that included Patrol, Firearms Instruction, and Field Training. Robert joined the Special Activity Felony Enforcement, SAFE, Team in 1992 and was promoted to Police Corporal on September 20, 2002. On February 4, 2005, Robert was promoted to Police Sergeant and ultimately supervised a number of different teams including Violent Crime Suppression, Special Enforcement, and Patrol. Since being promoted to Police Lieutenant on May 9, 2008, he has served as the Commander for the Major Crimes Division, Patrol, and Public Information. Not only was Robert a capable and decisive leader but he also demonstrated resourcefulness, teamwork, and a devotion to duty which led to him receiving a Distinguished Service Medal in 2007. Additionally, he has received numerous commendations from community members, local businesses, and supervisors during his career. Robert was a valued employee and leader of the Fairfield Police Department. His commitment to the community was unwavering. He was a loyal representative of the law enforcement community and admired amongst his peers for his 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 Robert D. Bunting continued success and happiness in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Captain Michael M. Johnstone, who is retiring after nearly 30 years of law enforcement service--26 years of service to the City of Fairfield and almost four years with the Oakland Police Department. As his colleagues, friends and family gather together to celebrate the next chapter of his life, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this outstanding public servant and defender of peace and safety. Michael began his law enforcement career as a Police Officer with the Oakland Police Department. He was then hired as a Police Officer with the Fairfield Police Department on October 29, 1984. As an officer, he worked in various capacities including Patrol, Investigations, Special Operations, Narcotics, and Field Training. He earned the Police Officer of the Year award in 1996, joined the Crisis Negotiation Team in 1997, and was promoted to Police Corporal on December 31, 1999. On December 28, 2001, Michael was promoted to Police Sergeant and ultimately served in a number of capacities including Patrol, Investigations, Professional Standards, and Public Information. He was a strong and decisive leader which led to him receiving the Manager of the Year award in 2003. On December 7, 2007, he was promoted to Police Lieutenant and served as Commander for Patrol, Quality of Life, and Administrative Divisions. As the Police Department experienced changes in leadership and command staff, Michael consistently stepped in and assisted City management in filling the gaps. Over the last two years, he assumed the Captain's position and managed Patrol Operations twice and he also acted as Deputy Police Chief when needed. Michael was a valued employee and leader of the Fairfield Police Department. His commitment to the community was unwavering. He was a loyal representative of the law enforcement community and admired amongst his peers for his 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 Michael M. Johnstone continued success and happiness in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Police Corporal Troy D. Freeman, who is retiring after 28 years of law enforcement service--26 years of service to the City of Fairfield and three years with the San Francisco State University Department of Public Safety. As his colleagues, friends and family gather together to celebrate the next chapter of his life, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this outstanding public servant and defender of peace and safety. Troy began his law enforcement career as a Police Officer with the San Francisco State University Department of Public Safety. He was then hired as a Police Officer with the Fairfield Police Department on March 5, 1984. As an officer, he worked in various capacities including Patrol, K-9, Firearms Instruction, and Field Training. He joined the Special Activity Felon Enforcement (SAFE) Team in 1991, earned the Police Officer of the Year award in 2005, and was promoted to Police Corporal on August 19, 2005. One of Troy's most significant contributions to the Police Department was his involvement with the K-9 Unit. He was a K-9 handler from 1989- 2001 with two very special dogs, Cito and Brend, and continued to train and lead the K-9 program even after his dogs retired. He was responsible for developing, coordinating, conducting, and documenting all of the training for the K-9 Unit. He also managed the asset seizure records and researched updates in law and training methods. Troy was instrumental to the success of the Police Department's K-9 program. Troy was a valued employee and leader of the Fairfield Police Department. His commitment to the community was unwavering. He was a loyal representative of the law enforcement community and admired amongst his peers for his 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 Troy D. Freeman continued success and happiness in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Sergeant David N. Walsh, who is retiring after 31 years of law enforcement service--21 years of service to the city of Fairfield, nearly eight years with the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department, and more than two years with Fresno County Sheriff's Department. As his colleagues, friends and family gather together to celebrate the next chapter of his life, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this outstanding public servant and defender of peace and safety. David began his law enforcement career as a Deputy Sheriff with Fresno County and then Contra Costa County. He was then hired as a Police Officer with the Fairfield Police Department on November 27, 1989. As an officer, he worked in various capacities including Patrol, Investigations, Firearms Instruction, and Field Training. He joined the Special Activity Felony Enforcement, SAFE, Team in 1992 and was promoted to Police Corporal on April 19, 2002. On July 9, 2004, David was promoted to Police Sergeant and ultimately supervised a number of different teams including Patrol, Violent Crime Suppression, Traffic and Investigations. He was an extremely capable and team orientated leader. Over the course of his career, David has received numerous commendations from the community and his co-workers. David was a valued employee and leader of the Fairfield Police Department. His commitment to the community was unwavering. He was a loyal representative of the law enforcement community and admired amongst his peers for his 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 David N. Walsh continued success and happiness in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Corporal Melvin E. Ferro, who is retiring after more than 28 years of law enforcement service to the City of Fairfield. As his colleagues, friends and family gather together to celebrate the next chapter of his life, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this outstanding public servant and defender of peace and safety. Mel started his law enforcement career when he was hired as a Police Officer with the Fairfield Police Department on March 19, 1982. As an officer, he worked in various capacities including Patrol, Investigations, and Field Training. He earned awards for his performance, including Police Officer of the Year for 1994, and twice he was named Police Officer of the Quarter--June through October 2000 and again for July through December 2007. Mel served as a Field Training Officer beginning in 1995 and was later promoted to Police Corporal on December 31, 1999. One of Mel's most significant contributions to the Fairfield Police Department has been his expertise in investigating and solving major crimes. His knowledge and memory pertaining to the activity and association of criminals in the area was a resource for the entire Police Department. He took community-orientated policing to a new level because he made an effort to learn where criminals lived in Fairfield, and he tracked their travel and associates. Additionally, as a trainer of fellow police officers, he taught what most police officers rarely develop--the craft of being a police officer. Mel was a valued employee and leader in the Fairfield Police Department. His commitment to the community was unwavering. He was a loyal representative of the law enforcement community and admired amongst his peers for his 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 Melvin E. Ferro continued success and happiness in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. We have always thought of America as being the land of opportunity; and it has to be the land of opportunity for everyone in this country, wherever they may be, whatever their status may be. And we know that if we are able to rebuild the manufacturing base in America, small companies, large companies, entrepreneurs and inventors will all participate in it. So the Make it in America effort will be a bipartisan effort. And if we put our minds to it, it will be a successful effort, and America once again will be in the leadership place. Mr. Speaker, we yield back our time, and we thank you.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much for joining us. Ms. Jackson Lee, why don't you take 1 minute and I will take 1 minute and we will wrap this thing up.