John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, ever since I got involved in public policy, which was about 40 years ago, this Nation has been crying for energy independence. I remember my very first campaign in 1974, during the oil energy crisis, when there was all around the world no oil available and no gas available, and we wanted to be energy independent. We are actually getting close to it; although, we continue to import 25 percent of our crude oil, but maybe we are on the cusp of being energy independent. So what does Big Oil want to do? It is not good enough that they should be the wealthiest of all corporations in America and the world. They want to take our precious and almost energy independent oil and export it. Where is it going to go? Where is the market? China, for sure, wants oil. They are going to need to double their import of oil. So where is Big Oil going to go with our precious natural resource that we have for at least the last 40 years been trying to use to achieve energy independence? Why would my good friend from Texas give away to Big Oil our energy independence? Why would we do that? By the way, the 1975 law does not prohibit. It puts the hand of the government--the President and the Secretary of Commerce--on the spigot, and if it is not in America's interest to export, they can shut the spigot down. There is no such protection in this. The only hand on the spigot for the export of oil is Big Oil. There is $30 billion a year of additional revenue for Big Oil--as if they don't already have enough. What about the rest of the Nation? Shouldn't this natural resource asset of America's be shared? It could be. Control the spigot to the benefit of the people at the gas pump. My farmers need chemicals and fertilizer coming from the oil industry. They need the pipes--they need all of the material--and they need the diesel. Oh, we can forget about the farmers. After all, Big Oil wants to ship our precious natural resource--oil--overseas, probably to China. So why don't we put a control on this, and if it is not in the public interest, don't do it? $8.7 billion of refining infrastructure will not be built as a result of this export. Whose jobs are those? They are the American middle class', which, apparently, all of us want to protect and enhance. Those are middle class jobs. $8.7 billion of infrastructure is not going to be built in our refineries. This is not a big deal. After all, Big Oil wants it. It is no big deal that we would take, as we move towards energy independence, the one product that is available that could diminish the 25 percent oil we currently import. No. We are simply going to ship it offshore. For whose benefit? Are the American mariners going to benefit from that? No. Are the American shipbuilders going to benefit from that? No, not at all. Who is going to benefit? Some in the oil patch will benefit for sure, and, certainly, the Big Oil companies will benefit; but will the American consumer at the gasoline pump benefit? I have seen the studies. You can design a study that will show it, but it means nothing. Remember this: $30 billion of oil a year is going to leave this country. For whose benefit? For Big Oil? It is not for the person at the gas pump. It is not for the farmer who is buying the diesel. It is not for the farmer who wants to buy the fertilizer. Give it away. Let them have it--as if they don't already have enough. For a century, Big Oil has been subsidized by the American public. Enough already. I don't think this is a good idea. I don't think it is a good idea to take our crude oil and allow it to be shipped overseas with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever. You want a strong vote on this? Then make it a strong ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to figure out who would be opposed to this amendment, so maybe I will just talk my few minutes and go from there. The bill deals with energy, and I am trying to figure out, let's see, energy that goes along in wires would be electrical energy. If it is coal, it is probably on a truck or a train. If it is oil or gas, it is on a pipeline or maybe in a truck, maybe in a boat or barge. But this bill doesn't speak to the transportation of energy, so this amendment is extraordinarily important because it really says that, if you are going to study energy, you better study how you are going to get it to wherever it needs to go. This amendment, being such an important amendment, and so long--let's see, transportation. Wow, not even 15 letters. That is all it does. It simply adds the word ``transportation'' to the study section of this bill, requiring the Department of Energy, as it studies energy, to study how it gets from here to there. That is it. Now, I can go on for another 4 minutes or so, but after doing so, it won't make any difference because we really need to study energy and figure out how it gets to where it needs to go. That is the amendment. Add the word ``transportation'' in it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I came in prepared for a brawl, and all I get is acceptance of an amendment. I think I will go with that and say thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extraordinary wisdom that apparently we both seem to have. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me wrap up very quickly, then. This is about being fair in the practices of lending. I understand the auto dealers and the indirect lenders would rather not, but there is a history here, as has been stated in the debate, of where lenders have been found to be out of compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. So what we are trying to do here with this opposition to this bill is saying to follow the guidance, follow the guidance and stay out of trouble. Pretty simple.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. My colleague from California has raised a very significant issue here. It kind of helps to actually read the guidelines. I have spent 8 years of my life as a regulator trying to protect the consumers from unfair practices in the insurance industry, some of which dealt with the issue of credit. What we have here is an effort by the CFPB to give guidance--not a law, not a regulation, but guidance--to auto dealers and to indirect lenders on what they should do--not must do, but what they should do-- to obey the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which the CFPB actually does have the power to enforce. By extension, an indirect lender stands in the place of an auto dealer in developing the terms of credit. That then makes the indirect lender subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. It is pretty simple here. This is guidance about how you could monitor what you should do as a dealer or as an indirect lender in obeying the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. It is pretty simple. And when you don't do it, there are outlines about what you should do to deal with any problem that is found. I am going: What is the problem here? The problem here is obeying the law as an indirect lender where you actually have the power to direct and to determine what the loan is. Now, my history in regulating the insurance industry is that there is a pernicious and continuing discrimination that takes place, not necessarily Black, not necessarily Hispanic, but it exists in the poorer communities and keeps those communities down because they wind up paying a whole lot more for insurance, for credit, and for other economic policies. Pretty simple.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name from H.R. 3403 as a cosponsor.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Larry Neil Vanderhoef, a long-serving Chancellor at the University of California, Davis. On October 15, Larry passed away at age 74. I was fortunate to call him my friend, and he will truly be missed. Chancellor Vanderhoef grew up from adversity and humble beginnings to be an incredible leader. He was raised in a small factory town in Wisconsin, and became the first in his family to finish high school and one of the few in his small town to go to college. He received his BA and MS in Biology from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and he later pursued and received his Ph.D in Plant Biochemistry from Purdue University. The Chancellor was a true visionary and academic diplomat, not just for the University of Davis but also for the wider Davis community. His extraordinary dedication is best described by the legacy he leaves behind. He devoted more than a quarter-century of his life to UC Davis, first as Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor from 1984 to 1994, and then as Chancellor for fifteen years after that--finally retiring in 2009. He was an academic servant who had a vision for UC Davis, and today the campus is one of the top leading research universities in the nation. Throughout his life, Chancellor Vanderhoef was a tireless advocate for higher education whose passion and dedication transformed UC Davis. Almost every aspect of the university was impacted by his efforts to improve the education system, including the university's national rankings, student population, faculty, and research initiatives and facilities. Under Chancellor Vanderhoef's leadership, student enrollment grew from 22,000 to more than 30,000, the faculty increased by 44%, classroom, lab, and office space expanded by 6 million square feet, and the National Science Foundation ranked UC Davis in the top 10 in the nation for research funding among other public universities. He was a visionary leader who made great strides toward bettering not only the university, but also the community of Davis. He held a strong passion for music and the arts, and advocated for the construction of what is now the Shrem Museum of Art. His promise to build a world-class performing arts center was realized in 2002 when doors opened to the Robert and Margrit Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts, placing the university on the world stage. The performing arts center also serves as a beautiful new south entrance to the campus, making it more accessible to the public. During his tenure as Chancellor, UC Davis was admitted into the Association of American Universities, a prestigious organization with only 62 members in the United States and Canada. Chancellor Vanderhoef's support of the sciences and medical research was reflected in his many initiatives on campus such as the creation of the Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science. He also transformed the Sacramento County Hospital into what is known today as the highly renowned UC Davis Health System, providing patients with the highest of quality care. The health system includes the UC Davis Medical Center, UC Davis School of Medicine, The Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, and the UC Davis Medical Group. Not only does the UC Davis Health System conduct innovative research, but it stimulates Sacramento's economy by creating more than 20,000 jobs and generating $3.4 billion annually in economic output. In addition to the arts and sciences, Chancellor Vanderhoef was a firm believer in the power of academic diplomacy. While at UC Davis, he promoted study abroad programs and the importance of international engagement in the Middle East. He believed that being exposed to new cultures and new ways of thinking can foster dialogue and greater understanding. Currently, students are able to participate in numerous study abroad programs such as the UC Davis Quarter Abroad or Summer Program, a Seminar Abroad Program, or even hold an internship abroad. Today, the Larry N. Vanderhoef Scholarship for Study Abroad, named for his legacy, continues to make these unforgettable opportunities open to Davis students. Due to his many accomplishments in the Davis community, Chancellor Vanderhoef was granted numerous awards for his dedication and commitment to higher education. The Chancellor was named Sacramentan of the Year in 2004 by the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, and in 2006, he was presented with the Northern California International Leadership Award and was elected as an honorary member of the World Innovation Foundation. I am deeply honored to have known Chancellor Larry Neil Vanderhoef and to pay tribute to a great visionary who dedicated his life to public service and to the people of Davis. There is little doubt that Chancellor Vanderhoef's presence was felt throughout the entire community. He left a remarkable legacy, which will not soon be forgotten. It is my sincere hope that the students and faculty at UC Davis will embody the Chancellor's spirit and continue to carry his legacy with them throughout their lives. It is leaders like Chancellor Vanderhoef who inspire change and make the most impact on those around them.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a vital childhood nutrition program in desperate need of funding. In the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Congress established mandatory funding of $5 million annually for a farm to school competitive grant and technical assistance program. This program allows communities to provide local foods in schools. Programs like this boost farm income while also fostering experiential food education for our children. Farm to school empowers children and their families to make informed food choices while strengthening the local economy and contributing to vibrant communities. The proven benefits such as food security, sustainable farming education, as well as long-term healthy lifestyle choices have been invaluable to communities all over the United States. Unfortunately, demand for the program is more than five times higher than available funding, which is why I urge Congress to support the Farm to School Act of 2015.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pay attention to the Farm to School Act of 2015. Like my colleague from Arkansas, California is a big agricultural State, and we know that kids go hungry. We have the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Children Act, providing some $5 million annually in competitive programs for schools to establish the Farm to School Act programs. These programs are vitally important to farmers, increasing their income, but even more important to kids who can get good, healthy food, locally grown and available in their schools. So let's pay attention here. Let's get this new bill underway. Let's move this program forward. Let's put some money so our kids can have good food and our local farmers can have a good market.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, this is chaos week in Washington, and there are a lot of things going on. Most people want to talk about Benghazi or--I don't know--maybe the Speaker, the next Speaker or the last Speaker. However, what I would like to talk about today is chaos in America's infrastructure system. Early this morning on my way to the airport in Sacramento I was driving up Interstate 5, the highway that connects Mexico and Canada and Oregon and Washington and California. I hit a huge pothole and then another pothole. It turns out that the entire right lane was a series of potholes for the 9 miles that I traveled to get to the airport. That is not unusual, but that is the story of America's infrastructure. Everybody here on the floor wants to talk about how our great Nation is the world's most vibrant economy, the place where intellectual infrastructure takes place, but it certainly is not the place where physical infrastructure takes place. We rank 16th among the developed nations in the world on our infrastructure. Travel to China. High-speed rail is going every which way. They have new airports. I remember the comment of our Vice President when he flew into LaGuardia in New York City. It wasn't very complimentary. We have a need to build the infrastructure of this Nation because it is upon the infrastructure that the economy grows. It is upon the highways that we travel and move the goods and services. It is upon the transit system that more than 45 percent of Americans depend on for their transportation. We have got problems. I was reminded of Apollo 13 and that very famous quote coming back from space: ``Houston, we've had a problem here.'' Yep. America, we have got problems. That is a picture of the bridge on Interstate 5 in Washington State. Just a little bit north of this bridge is the Canadian border. This bridge collapsed about 3 years ago. There are 63,500 bridges in America that are deficient, and over the last decade we have seen Americans die on bridges that have collapsed. We have got a problem. Among other things, given all the chaos here in Washington, we have got a problem with infrastructure. The House of Representatives is going to take up an infrastructure bill this week in committee. We will talk about that a little later. First I want to go through some of the other problems besides bridges and highways. Oh, by the way, it would take $780 billion to bring our highways up to adequate standards. That is a lot of money. Or maybe it is not. That is about three-quarters of what we have spent in Afghanistan over the last 14 years. I guess we make decisions here about where we spend money. Forty-two percent of our highways are in inadequate condition, and congestion abounds in 42 percent of the urban highways. Yep, we have got problems, but we can solve them. We will see whether the House of Representatives and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is willing to solve the problems this week when we take up the infrastructure bill here in the House of Representatives. I would like to have my colleague from California, Representative Janice Hahn, address one of our other problems. It is a problem that she is particularly aware of. She represents the greatest port in America, the Port of Los Angeles, and its neighboring port, the Port of Long Beach. Representative Hahn.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Representative Hahn, your leadership on the port issues is well known. You head up the PORTS Caucus here in the House of Representatives. You are constantly badgering all of us about the necessity of the ports being expanded. We know the Eastern ports are facing the challenge of providing access for the Panamax ships, bigger ships being able to go through the Panama Canal. As you have told us so many times, we need to improve the infrastructure on the West Coast for the efficiency so that we can keep those Panamax ships on the West Coast. The freight issue that you talked about so eloquently here is absolutely on. It is the major part of the American transportation economy. We look at roads, we look at railroads, but the notion of combining this into a comprehensive strategy in which we talk about the movement of goods, the freight movement. Your leadership is very, very important. I thank you so very much for joining us. I know that you have a tight schedule for the evening, but you broke away to bring us the very, very important message. I want to continue on here really with the ports. The American Society of Civil Engineers does a report card on the American infrastructure. We would fail. We would have to go back to remedial classes if their report card was somehow the way in which we would judge the work of the United States Congress because, with regard to ports, as we just discussed, it is a C, even though progress has been made. To meet the needs of the ports, we are going to have to spend an additional $46 billion over and above what is already programmed. We are going to have to spend $748 billion in the future in order to meet the needs of the highways, and that just gets us out of the D rating provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers. For transit, it is also a D. As I said earlier, some one-half of American households depend upon transit because they don't have a car, and 45 percent of the urban passengers cannot get the services that they need from transit. It goes on and on and on. Bridges, a C-plus. As I said earlier, 63,500 bridges are inadequate. For the rail system, part of what Congresswoman Hahn was talking about, the railroads have invested over $75 billion of their own money improving their systems, but the intermodal programs that are so necessary require that those rails connect to the highways, to the trucking industry, and that hasn't been done. So the rails actually receive a C-plus ranking. We have got work to do here. We have got some very, very serious problems. Let me just put this up because there are solutions available to us. If we take a look at the problem, in this case, the global assessment of the United States is 16th for transportation infrastructure. The solution? Invest. For every dollar that we invest, the economy grows by $3.54. So when you put a dollar in, suddenly you get the economy moving. People go to work. For every billion dollars that we invest in roads and bridges, we are going to create 21,671 jobs. Those are people that are getting good, high-quality, high-paying, middle-income jobs. Guess what. They are going to pay taxes. So you invest a dollar and you get back $3.54 of economic activity. And you get tax growth, not new taxes, but new people paying taxes. That is what we want. We want people to go to work. We want jobs in America. We find that, if we invest in infrastructure, we have got the opportunity to create jobs, to increase the tax base, and grow the economy. Now, on the negative side, underinvesting in infrastructure costs America over 900,000 jobs, including 97,000 jobs in manufacturing. These things go together. We have fortunately had over the years a buy- America requirement in the infrastructure financing for highways and bridges and the rest and for transit, that your tax dollars, my tax dollars, all of our tax dollars, are required to be used to buy American-made goods, equipment, services, buses, and the like. Unfortunately, it is only 50 percent. So a transit agency can take your tax money and spend 50 percent of that tax money on buying a bus or a train from China, and the other 50 percent presumably would have to be spent on American-made services and goods. Not good enough. I think it ought to be 99 percent. Why not use our tax money to buy American? So these are the opportunities and the problems that we have available to us, and that is the large outsourcing that I just talked about. And the solution? Make It In America. I have talked about that for 5 years here on the floor. Build the American economy with Make It In America laws and regulations. Use our tax money to buy American-made goods and equipment. Here is what it means. Let me give you a couple of examples of the good news and the bad news. Here is why Make It In America strategies are important. The bad news is California, my home State, where we had to rebuild the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, spanning from Oakland to the peninsula, San Francisco. It fell down during the '89 earthquake, and then we decided we had to rebuild it. Well, you know, it takes a long time to figure out how to build it and what it is going to look like. It took forever. However, it was a multibillion-dollar project; and someone decided that it would be cheaper to buy Chinese steel than American steel, so they contracted with a Chinese steel company. The result was 3,000 jobs in China, a brand-new steel mill to manufacture the most high-quality steel. And what the Chinese sent to America was deficient. The welds were insufficient. There were problems in the quality of the steel. The result was, at least part of that problem was, some $3.5 billion overrun. That is the bad news. California really screwed up. We say, ``Make it in America.'' Guess what happened on the other side of the continent? New York needed to rebuild a new bridge, the New York Tappan Zee Bridge. It was made with United States manufactured steel; total cost, $3.9 billion, 7,728 American jobs because they undertook a buy America requirement, and they bought it in America; on time, under budget. The Tappan Zee Bridge, good; the San Francisco Bay Bridge, bad. Make it in America, buy American, that ought to be our policy. I want to move on to where we are this week. On October 29, the United States Congress will engage in its favorite game: kicking the can down the road. We will take up a transportation and infrastructure bill in the House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee this week. Good for us. Several months late, not in time for next week's deadline. So we will kick the can down the road. We will give ourselves another couple of months to ponder how we can address the needs of America's infrastructure. I want to suggest to you there is a way we can do it. I put this chart up to challenge all of us. This chart displays the opportunity as well as the potential for the missed opportunity. There are three new infrastructure pieces of legislation that are floating around the United States Capitol. But before we go to those three, I want to call your attention to where we are today. Highway funding, this is today's highway funding. We are spending somewhere around $264 billion on highways, $64.2 billion on transit. The entire amount over a 6-year period of time--this is 6 years--is $319 billion. This does not include the rail system. So $319 billion is what we are spending today over a 6-year period of time. I have already said how inadequate that is. I won't go back through that again. Now, the administration proposed but, frankly, never pushed, never put any weight behind it and, I think, copped out on what is, in my view, a very, very good bill, a comprehensive bill that included rail transit--again, not included here. It was a bill that had $449 billion, not including the rail, over a 6-year period, compared to the $319 billion that we are spending today. That amounts to, what, $120 billion a year more--actually, $130 billion a year more. That is good. That is what we need. I misquoted that. It is $130 billion over 6 years. That is the kind of money that we need to build the infrastructure. Highways, $317 billion, over 6 years, compared to where we are today, $246 billion. Significant increase, enough to fix the potholes on I-5. Transit, $114.6 billion over 6 years, compared to today, $64 billion over 6 years. The entire sum, $449 billion, compared to $319 billion over 6 years. That is the kind of progress that we can and must make if we want to move from 16th among the world's economies, developed economies, to get back up into the top five. That is what we need to do. Now, once again, this does not include the rail transit. If you add the rail transit in, these numbers are a little bigger. That is the kind of effort. The United States Senate, what did they decide to do in their bill called the Senate DRIVE Act? $276 billion compared to $246 billion over 6 years; $74.9 billion for transit, compared to $64 billion. That is good. That is $10 billion. Better, but not enough. We actually need over $114 billion or $115 billion. The entire sum on the Senate side, not including rail, is $361 billion compared to $319 billion. Better, but not enough. Not sufficient to build the infrastructure that this economy and this society need to move out of 16th place back into the top tier of five. Now, where is the House of Representatives? This week, we are going to take up a bill that is less than the Senate bill and just a little, teeny, tiny bit better than what we are doing today. So if you are happy with what we are doing today, you will love the House bill. But if you don't want potholes, if you want to deal with congestion, if you want to deal with ports and freight, if you want to move from a D to a B or an A, you don't do it with the House bill. I understand, this is a starting point. This is the beginning of negotiations. But why in the world would you begin negotiations at the bottom when you need to get to the top? It beats me. I don't get it. We have got to build the American infrastructure. It is how we move our economy. It is how we move people back to work in good, middle- class jobs. It is how your tax money should be spent. And how can we raise the revenue for this? Well, we don't need to increase the gasoline or the diesel tax. Keep it the same, no increase. People can argue that it should or should not be increased, but you don't need to. This proposal, the GROW AMERICA Act, the additional $100-plus billion dollars over 6 years to build our infrastructure, is fully paid for by keeping the gasoline and the diesel tax at the level it is today and going after the hidden profits of the United States corporations that have skipped out on their responsibility to this country. They are hiding their profits overseas. We need to go after those profits and say: You owe it to America; bring that money back and pay your just taxes. That is how this is paid for, fully paid for. How much? About $120 billion over 6 years, enough to get the job done. American corporations won't be allowed to run away from their responsibility to their country. They will pay their fair share, here in America. No more tax dodges overseas, folks. So, where are we? The question for the Congress of the United States is: Are we going to go with what we have today, just a little bit more, just keeping up with inflation? Is that good enough for America to be number one? No, it is not. Can we do better without burdening the truckers, without burdening the commuters? We can, if we are willing to step up to the American corporations, the big and the powerful, and say: Pay your fair share. Oh, by the way, their fair share is 14 percent, which is less than one-half of the corporate tax rate. We will see what happens. The House of Representatives, the men and women that you have elected, are going to make some decisions. We will make a decision about Speaker eventually. That will get taken care of eventually. We will make some decisions about a few other things. But the infrastructure issue of this Nation is fundamental to economic growth. I hope we make the right decision. I hope we make the decision to grow this economy, to make it in America, spend your tax dollars here at home, and give you the roads, the transit system, the ports, the freight movement, the airports that you need and America needs. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we have before us a very, very important issue. It is a national security issue. My good friend from San Diego spoke to one part of our Nation's security, and that is the ability of this Nation to move its interests around the world not just with airplanes, but with ships. Unfortunately, this is a very narrowly constructed piece of legislation that speaks to the interests of the petroleum industry and the many thousands of people who work there. We concede that. But this bill could also be a boon to another part of our Nation's security, and that is our maritime industry. Unfortunately, the bill does not do that. While it does deal with the Maritime Security Program--and that is good--it does not deal in full potential with what we can do, and that is to require that this strategic asset, oil, be shipped on American- built ships with American mariners. That is not in the bill. It should be. It could be. If it were, our shipyards and our mariners all around this Nation would have tens of thousands of jobs, and we would secure yet not only the interest of our petroleum industry but, also, the interest of our maritime industry as well as the shipyards upon which this Nation's national defense depends. Put it in the bill. Then let's see how many votes you can get.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. You have been a leader on these issues for many, many years and certainly in your territory of Ohio. You saw what happened when the manufacturing plants left; but they are coming back, and we can make policy to do that. I think you may have other things that you would like to bring to our attention. You are certainly welcome to do so. I think with that, it is time for me to say ``enough,'' or maybe I have said too much already. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, the attention of the House is drawn to many, many issues this week. Certainly, the tragedy in Oregon draws all of our attention, our sympathy, but unfortunately not our vote. We have never really had a vote here on the floor of the House to deal with this issue of gun safety; although, legislation has been passed around many, many times. Even the most conservative columnists are now saying that we must take action, and we really should. So I will just start by saying to all of our colleagues: Let's vote, vote up or down on the various proposals that have been made. Certainly the attention of this body is turned to who is going to be the next Speaker. It seems to occupy most of the discussion and most of the articles in the newspapers around this town. It is important, but there are many, many other issues that come before the House. Some of them are really going to affect America. I want to talk about one of them today, and it is in the context of something we have been discussing here for the last 4 or 5 years. We call it Make It In America. It is about rebuilding the American manufacturing sector. It is about rebuilding the American middle class. It is about creating jobs in America by doing what we once did so very, very well, which is manufacturing. Make things: big things, little things, all kinds of things. We call it our Make It In America agenda. I am going to go through it very quickly here and then focus on one piece of this agenda. Here it is: trade policies. This is going to take a lot of time to discuss this. We are not going to go into it today, but the President announced just in the last couple days that the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal is done. Now, we don't know what is in it. We have--at least I have--great concerns about this and that it will be one more step in hollowing out the American manufacturing sector, but it is all secret. We don't know yet. We will find out soon enough, and we will undoubtedly come back and talk about trade. Taxes and tax policies, I will hit on this in a few moments. Labor issues, well, that ties back to the trade issue and whether we are going to send more of our jobs overseas. Education, research, infrastructure, today I really want to focus on this energy and infrastructure. If you bear with me a few moments, I want to go into this in some detail. For many, many years, we have tried to make America energy independent, and in the last 5 years, 6 years now, we have seen an enormous increase in the production of energy in the United States. Now, a lot of that energy has come from green technologies--solar, wind, and biofuels--and many other ways of producing renewable energy called green energy. That is good because all of that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and we need to do more of it. Frankly, we need tax policy. Maybe I will put this back up again so I can point out the way in which the Make It In America agenda fits all of this. Tax policy has a great deal to do with green energy. There are tax breaks for solar installation on your home, solar installation for businesses, the production tax credit for wind and solar. All of these things make it really possible to advance the green energy agenda. Tax policy also has a great deal to do with the other part of our energy independence--we are not quite there, but we are making great advances on it--and that has to do with petroleum products: natural gas and crude oil. There has been much talk about the Bakken revolution in Wyoming and North Dakota producing a lot of energy. We are talking about different techniques to extract oil, enhanced oil production, otherwise known as fracking. All of these things have led to an explosion--well, literally, in the case of the Bakken fuel because it is highly volatile, and it does explode when trains tip over. But what we are talking about here is an explosion in the volume of oil and natural gas produced in America. We have literally doubled the production of natural gas and oil over the last 5 to 6 years, bringing down the cost of fuel. Also, around the world, the slowdown of the Chinese economy and Europe have reduced the demand for oil, and we are seeing a reduced price of oil on the world market, even at a time when we are seeing more and more production of crude oil and natural gas here in the United States. What does all this mean to the oil industry, to the petroleum industry? It means they have got a lot of oil, and the United States is not consuming all of it or as much as they would like to keep the prices up. So guess what they want to do. They want to export oil. Isn't that something? How do we become energy-independent if we are exporting oil? Well, we have got a lot of interesting economic arguments about how that could be done. I am saying I don't think so. I don't think it is in the interest of the United States to take a strategic national asset--natural gas, crude oil--and export it to China. It may be good for China. It certainly would be good for the energy industry, the petroleum industry. Wow, they have got a new market. You see, right now there is a Federal ban on the export of crude oil to other countries, with the exception of Mexico and Canada. We swap crude oil back and forth. A little bit of crude oil is also shipped out of the United States from the North Slope of Alaska. A very interesting law was established back in the seventies, when there was this energy crisis and there were long lines at the gasoline pumps. That law said: No. You cannot export crude oil. And then later, in the 1990s, there was a little opening provided for Mexico and Canada and for Alaska North Slope oil. It could be shipped to other countries--exported--with this caveat: You cannot increase domestic oil prices. I don't know that that was ever enforced. We certainly saw the gasoline prices zip to the top last year. Now it is coming back down, and that is good. It is bad that it went up, good that it is coming down. But I don't think the Department of Energy or the Department of Commerce really enforced what was in the law about the export of crude oil from Alaska. So we have got this strategic asset--natural gas and crude oil--that has allowed us to have a resurgence of American manufacturing. They are coming home. American manufacturers are coming home to make it in America. Dow, a big chemical operation, is coming back to America because natural gas prices are low. Other companies are doing the same thing. Because the United States has a strategic advantage as a result of strategic assets: oil and natural gas, together with green energy. So what does the petroleum industry want to do? They want to ruin all of that. They want to take the strategic assets and ship them overseas. This week the House of Representatives is going to take up a piece of legislation that opens the spigot for the export of crude oil. There is already an open spigot for the export of natural gas. I will come to that in a few moments. So is this in the interest of the United States? Well, if you are in the oil patch--North Dakota, Texas, maybe even California--maybe it is good. Maybe you will be able to make a little more money. But at the expense of who? America, American consumers at the pump, truckers, trains. All of those use diesel produced here in the United States from our refineries. So good for the petroleum industry, but bad for America. We ought not do that. And if you would consider for a few moments that, should we ever allow the export of crude oil, we ought to put some serious caveats on that piece of legislation. But just today the Rules Committee of this House decided no, no, no caveats. Just a bare bill. Open the spigot. Send the crude oil overseas. Don't worry about the price of fuel. Don't worry about the price of energy in the United States. Worry about the bottom line of the petroleum industry. I say time out. Wait a minute. This is America. This is about the American economy. This is about men and women that go to the gas pump and buy gasoline, farmers out there having to buy diesel in order to plow their fields and harvest their crops, trains moving goods and services back across the United States, the airline industry. This is not just about the petroleum industry. This is a big deal for America. If we take a strategic national asset and just allow it to go anywhere in the world so that it is to the benefit of a small, but important, slice of the American economy, we are making a big mistake. So let me just put some caveats on this piece of legislation. Harken back to the Alaska situation back in 1995 where they opened the spigot. They put in a caveat that said: No. You can't do it if it results in an adverse effect on the price of transportation fuels and home heating fuels in the United States. Does the legislation we have this week have any caveats on it? No. It doesn't have that one. Let me give you another caveat. If we are going to ship a strategic national asset overseas, why don't we look at other strategic assets in the United States, shipbuilding? The entire United States Navy is dependent on American shipyards for all of their ships. Those shipyards no longer produce large, ocean- going commercial vessels. All of that has been off to China, off to Korea and Japan. All of those countries subsidize those shipyards. We don't do it in the United States. But we can put caveats on the export of this crude oil and simply say, if we are going to export crude oil, caveat one, not at the expense of American consumers; two, not at the expense of American refiners and other strategic asset--the refinery of these petroleum products; and, three, ship it on American-built ships with American mariners. Right now there are over 400,000 men and women working in the shipyards producing smaller ships for trade within the coastal zone of the United States and for the barges up and down the rivers and canals of the United States, but not building ocean-going tankers. What does it mean? Well, let me just give you an example. It has been estimated that the maximum amount of oil that could be shipped is somewhere about 3.6 million barrels a day. That is at the top level. Hopefully, they will never get close to that because that is almost certain to raise prices. But let's say that they do. For the largest tanker currently on the ocean today--these are the maximum tankers, too large to even go through the new Panama Canal and larger than the Panamax ships--it would take 180 ships to handle 3.6 million barrels of oil a day. What if those ships were American-built ships? This isn't Saudi Arabian oil. This isn't Iraqi oil, Venezuelan oil. This is American oil. What if we require that that oil be shipped on American ships and suddenly, over the next decade or two, our shipyards were to build 180 supertankers or, if they are Panamax-size ships, 384 Panamax-size ships? Think of the employment that would take place in the American shipyards and then through the entire supply train, all of the engines, all of the communications, all of the electronics, all of the pumps, all of the valves. We could see a resurgence in American manufacturing. Who benefits from this? Americans benefit. Americans benefit in the shipyards and in the manufacturing facilities all across this Nation. But, no, we are not going to do that here on the House floor. We are going to simply take a bill that opens the spigot and that gives the benefits to the oil patch, to the petroleum industry. And I am not saying that is not good for them. There will certainly be jobs. There will be some construction jobs, and there will be oil rigs that will have to be built. That is good. But think what we could do if we had a law that said: Okay. We are going to ship, but we are going to protect the domestic price of refined products, we are going to protect the American refineries, we are going to build American ships, and we are going to put American mariners on those ships. We are talking about tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand, new jobs in the United States. That is a good thing for the middle class. That is a good thing for America. We can do it by simply amending the oil export bill. But it is not going to happen. The majority here isn't going to allow that. They are simply going to pass a bill that opens the spigot. It is a shame. Shame on all of us if we would allow that to happen. Shame on us if we do not protect the American consumer. Shame on us if we do not protect the American maritime industry, the shipyards of America, the American middle class. Watch closely. It is going to happen. It is going to happen here on the House floor this week while all of the attention of America is looking at this Speakership thing. Okay. That is where we are on one critical issue. I want to take up one more and then I will call it a night. That is a new Amtrak locomotive for the Eastern Corridor, and it is 100 percent American-made. Why is it 100 percent American-made for the first time in decades--well, at least a decade and a half--and that the United States is once again producing locomotives? By the way, that is made near my district, in Sacramento. It is about 4 or 5 miles from the edge of my district. Several hundred men and women are employed doing this. Why did this happen? Because the Congress wrote policy that said your taxpayer dollars are going to be used not to buy a locomotive made in China or Japan or Europe, but to buy a locomotive made in America, made in America. Your tax dollars are being used to build locomotives in America. It is part of a transportation policy, which is where I want to go now. Before I do, I guess I forgot this. This is a liquefied natural gas tanker. I was just talking about crude oil and what could be done. This is another one. If we are going to export our natural gas--that strategic asset--it ought to be exported on American-made liquefied natural tankers. A new facility is opening down in Texas to export liquefied natural gas. That facility will take 100 tankers for that one facility. Not to worry. Those tankers are going to be made in China, Japan, Korea. They are not going to be made in America. But under 16 lines of law--all we need to do is write 16 lines of law--we would be manufacturing these tankers in the United States. It is the same argument that I made about the crude oil tankers. I won't go into it in any more detail. This is one of the great could- do's, should-do's, ought-to-do's for America. So the export of these strategic national assets--natural gas, petroleum--why don't we build them in America? Why don't we make it in America? I started to talk about the locomotives. October 29 is just about 23 days from today. The highway trust fund is out of money. Once again, we are on one of those cliffs--this time, a transportation cliff--and we have got to do something. And so what are we going to do? The President proposed the GROW America Act. It provides money for our crumbling transportation system, the infrastructure structure. There is a rail portion of it, locomotives, improving the rail system. There are buses, ports, bridges, and highways. It is a very, very good piece of legislation. It is $476 billion over the next 6 years. It is a big deal. It helps America come from number, I think, 18 in the infrastructure capability compared to other nations of the world. China has, I don't know, 5,000, 3,000 miles of high-speed rail. The United States has zero. Chinese airports, Japanese airports. I think even Cuba is now in the process of building a new deepwater port to take the Panamax ships. And what are we doing? Not much. The Grow America Act is totally stalled. It is not going anywhere right now. But we have got 23 days. So what are we proposing? Are we proposing something that will increase the rail capacity in the United States, that will combine rail, ports, and highways into a system to provide for goods movement, freight movement, integrated? No, we are not going to do such a thing. Other countries do it. Hey, but this is America. We just like to fall behind. So where are we with the Grow America Act? Well, some of us have introduced it. Some of us think we ought to do something like this, that we really ought to pay for our infrastructure. Oh, by the way, this doesn't raise gas taxes. It doesn't raise diesel taxes, but it does require that those American corporations that have skipped out on their obligation to their home country to bring their profits back to the United States and be taxed. So we maintain the existing excise tax on gasoline and fuel, and we pay for the rest of this by having American corporations pay their just due to this Nation by repatriating their foreign earnings hidden off somewhere in Ireland or some other tax havens, not taxed, even though they are American corporations. Oh, and some of this stuff is just too good. Apple, an American company, all of their manufacturing is overseas, and most of their profits are overseas also because, even though it is invented here, even though the software, even though the new equipment is invented in California, it is licensed in Ireland, and the profits stay in Ireland and are taxed there at a very low percentage--not fair to America. So those profits would come home from other companies as well, and it would fill this $476 billion over 6 years. I want to just go through some of this, and then we will wrap this up. The Grow America Act would provide $52 billion a year for highways. We are presently spending $41 billion a year for highways, so we are looking at something $11 billion more for highways. Maybe there won't be so many potholes. Maybe one out of four bridges in the United States will get repaired. Right now, they are deficient. They could fall down. They are insufficient in capacity. Maybe we could do that. Now, the Senate has done a little better. The Senate has passed a highway bill that is $46 billion a year, which is $5 billion more than we are currently spending, and that is good. It is a 5-year program that is only paid for in 3 years. Huh? How does that work? It doesn't, but it is a good start. But the Grow America Act, $52 billion a year. Anybody take buses in the United States? Anybody take BART in California, or the Metro system in Los Angeles, or here in Washington, the Metro, or the subways in Chicago, New York, Atlanta and so forth? That is called transit. We are presently spending about $10 billion, $10.6 billion a year on transit, supporting these transportation systems. The Senate bill adds about $2 billion, so they go to $12.5 billion. The Grow America Act, let's get on with it. Let's build those systems. $19 billion, without raising your fuel taxes. But if you happen to be those American companies that have skipped out on their obligation to this Nation, they are going to wind up paying their fair share. So we go from 10.6 for transit, $10.6 billion annually for transit, to $19 billion in the Grow America Act. Remember, I put some of these trains up here? We presently spend $1.4 billion on our rail system--not the transit. This is the heavy rail system. The Senate would go to $2.2 billion, and the Grow America Act would go to $4.7 billion. Are we going to do this? Not likely. Not likely. We have perfected a childhood game here in the House of Representatives and the Senate. In fact, your American Government has perfected this game. Something, when you didn't have a ball to kick around, you would kick a can around. It is called kick the can down the road. We have perfected that. I think we have done it more than 30 times to transportation over the last decade and a half. We are highly likely to do it again, as the attention of America and the attention here amongst all of us is focused on the Speakership fights, which will culminate at the end of October when the Speaker retires and we will have a new vote. But in the intervening 23 days, are we going to focus on a transportation program for America or are we going to focus on the internal politics of the House of Representatives? I will tell you where I would put my money. I would put my money on the House of Representatives worrying about the internal politics of who is going to be the next leader and not paying attention to what America wants us to do. America wants us to pay attention to their needs, not to the internal politics of this place, but to the needs of America, American jobs for American workers. Can we build ships? Oh, yeah, we can build ships. Can we build liquefied natural gas tankers? You bet we can. We are already building ships that are fueled by liquefied natural gas. We are doing it in San Diego. We know how to do this. We would have to ramp up. We are not going to build 180 ships in 1 year, but we sure could over the next two decades. But maybe we care more about the petroleum industry than we do about the American worker and the American sailor and the shipyards of America. I am afraid that is the way it is likely to be here. I notice that I am joined here by an extraordinary woman from what used to be the manufacturing center of the United States, the Midwest, Ohio, to be quite clear. Marcy Kaptur, I have been going on for more than I probably should have in time but, boy, these are important issues. These are really important issues. Please join us. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Constance Boulware a City Councilwoman for Rio Vista and one of my district's 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, on the Twenty-Second Day of September, of the Year Two Thousand and Fifteen, Constance Boulware was recognized as a 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, upon retirement after 30 years of service with the Social Security Administration, Constance (Connie) Boulware relocated from the Bay Area to Rio Vista in 2007. While on her journey of discovery in her newly adopted hometown, she found volunteer organizations and service clubs in need of an extra pair of hands and offered hers. Over time, Connie's interest in city government grew. She was appointed first to the Airport Committee and then to the Army Base Reuse Committee. In 2010, Connie was elected to the Rio Vista City Council and re-elected in 2014 where she serves today. Whereas, as a council member, Connie has a particular interest in the needs of Seniors and Children. Her hallmark has been her responsiveness to constituents and her ability to bring people together to tackle community needs. In the midst of a city budget crisis, Connie has been successful in bringing volunteers together to make much needed Senior Center repairs and provide unmet summer recreational needs for children at little to no cost to the City. Whereas, Connie also serves as President of the Solano County Library Foundation, Board Member of Rio Vision, Co-President of Women's Improvement Club, President of the Rio Vista Lions Club, and President of the Rio Vista Soroptimists Club. Whereas, Constance Boulware inspires with the quiet, modest and caring way she leads by example, drawing others to join her in making life better for her community. She never says, ``We can't do that,'' but instead says, ``Let's see what we can do together.'' Resolved, That I Congressman John Garamendi of California's Third Congressional District, do hereby recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Constance Boulware.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Deidre Robinson, a business leader and one of my district's 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, on the Twenty-Second Day of September, of the Year Two Thousand and Fifteen, Deidre Robinson was recognized as a 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, Deidre Robinson has worked tirelessly for over 20 years as a diverse leader of relationship-building and strategic alliances. Deidre's community service and volunteerism starts in Solano County and reaches as far as the San Francisco Bay Area. She recognizes the impact that others have had on her life and career and her passion for volunteerism, leadership, and commitment are based on a vision that is driven by personal experiences. Whereas, her volunteer contributions to organizations such as CoachArt, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Kid Fest, Relay for Life, and other groups are remarkable. In addition, Deidre is also the Vice Treasurer of Alpha Kappa Alpha, Tau Upsilon Omega Chapter, for which she provides volunteer services to students and young adult women through mentoring and workshops on leadership. Recently, Deidre was appointed by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. to the California Board of Accountancy. Whereas, as a single mother of two, nothing has prevented Deidre from achieving monumental milestones both professionally and personally. She has been a role model for both her children and the community. Resolved, That I Congressman John Garamendi of California's Third Congressional District, do hereby recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Deidre Robinson.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Dawn Dowdy a track coach and mentor and one of my district's 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, on the Twenty-Second Day of September, of the Year Two Thousand and Fifteen, Dawn Dowdy was recognized as a 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, Dawn Dowdy is a dedicated Track Coach for Hamilton High School. Dawn has redefined the term ``dedication'' and has not let the fact that Hamilton High does not have a track on campus hinder her students from reaching personal goals and competing in regional competitions. Whereas, Dawn has not allowed substantial budget cuts deter her from attracting a high number of students into her program. She has orchestrated fundraising to ensure students have the means to participate and takes a personal interest in each student to make sure they keep up with their academics. Some of her students have competed in the State Finals and obtained college scholarship funds. Whereas, Hamilton City is a small, tight-knit community of 2,000. Dawn's ability to mentor, motivate and maximize students' potential on and off the Track is priceless. Resolved, That I Congressman John Garamendi of California's Third Congressional District, do hereby recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Dawn Dowdy.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Dionne McCullar, a business leader, community volunteer and one of my district's 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, on the Twenty-Second Day of September, of the Year Two Thousand and Fifteen, Dionne McCullar was recognized as a 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, Dionne McCullar was born and raised in San Francisco. She and her husband, Charles are the proud parents of 3 grown daughters and 3 grandchildren. Dionne established a career with the San Francisco Police Department where she served for 14 years as a Peace Officer. Whereas, now, a resident of Solano County, Dionne is co-owner of a successful small business, Front2Back Designs in Fairfield. Whereas, Dionne is Past President of Fairfield Kiwanis Club and Chair of Salvation Army Red Kettle. Dionne is an active supporter of Solano Hearts United/Solano Turkey Trot, Mission Solano, Heather House, Rotary Club, Yippie Yogurt Foundation, Heart2Heart, Little Wing Connections, The Leaven, Ride to Defeat Diabetes, Children's Nurturing Project, The Continentals of Omega Boys & Girls Club of Vallejo, and Children in Need of Hugs. Whereas, Dionne has also served as Ambassador for several area Chambers of Commerce. Her business motto is ``to treat customers how we would want to be treated as consumers and to give back to the community that has helped to sustain our business.'' True to her word, Dionne is a shining star. Resolved, That I Congressman John Garamendi of California's Third Congressional District, do hereby recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Dionne McCullar.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Amandeep Kaur, an advocate for Underrepresented Student Groups and one of my district's 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, on the Twenty-Second Day of September, of the Year Two Thousand and Fifteen, Amandeep Kaur was recognized as a 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, Dr. Amandeep Kaur is Science Fellow to Chancellor Linda Katehi at UC Davis. She is a UC Davis alumna and received her PhD in Physics from UC Davis in July 2014. She is a passionate leader and advocate for underrepresented student groups at UC Davis. She has consistently worked towards empowering underrepresented graduate student groups at UC Davis since the academic year 2012-13. She says that her true calling is public service and making an impact in the lives of people. One of her biggest accomplishments was to advocate for creating more fellowships for international PhD students. Her advocacy led Provost Ralph Hexter to create post candidacy NRST fellowships in the academic year 2013-14 and to implement a new budget model of $2 million in the academic year 2014-15. This outcome has had a significant impact in the competitiveness of UC Davis and has allowed for equity for international PhD students at UC Davis. In May 2013, Amandeep was nominated by her peers and received an outstanding leadership award for her advocacy on behalf of international PhD students. Whereas, last year, as a Graduate Student Assistant to the Dean and Chancellor (GSADC), Amandeep hosted Diversity Dialogues on Graduate Education, a series of seven discussions on creating strategies to empower women students in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), students of color, international students, undocumented students, student veterans, student parents, LGBTQIA identified students, and students with visible/invisible disabilities. Whereas, currently as a postdoctoral science fellow to Chancellor Linda Katehi, she is furthering her advocacy on bridging the gaps for women in STEM through her Empowering Women in STEM (EWIS) initiative. She also believes that graduate students with the right expertise can help policy makers in shaping public policy which has motivated her to create Emerging Leaders in Policy and Public Service (ELIPPS) initiative at UC Davis. One of her goals through ELIPPS is to inspire more students to join public service. She believes in leading by example and is a role model for many students at UC Davis. Resolved, That I Congressman John Garamendi of California's Third Congressional District, do hereby recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Amandeep Kaur.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Cherie Stephens a community volunteer and one of my district's 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, on the Twenty-Second Day of September, of the Year Two Thousand and Fifteen, Cherie Stephens was recognized as a 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, Founder and Chair of the Yuba City Walk for Alzheimer's, Cherie Stephens has helped to raise more than $68,000 since its inception in 2013 and is on a personal mission to raise an additional $48,000 by the end of this year. Whereas, as President of the Yuba City-Marysville Soroptimists, Cherie helped to expand and grow the Girls on the Run program with the goal to unleash confidence in young women while establishing a lifetime appreciation for health and fitness as tomorrow's leaders. Utilizing last Fall's fundraising dollars, Soroptimists recently completed a beautiful bathroom remodel at the Salvation Army Depot Family Crisis Center, a project intended to instill a sense of dignity and self- confidence for the women housed there. Whereas, Cherie is co-owner of Stephens Farmhouse where in addition to baking pies, making jams, and tending to the storefront, she offers an educational program to local students called `Kids in the Kitchen'. Cherie is a California Women in Agriculture Member and past member of several organizations including the CA State Fair Board, Prune Festival, St. Isidore's Parent Club, and Farm Day. Whereas, despite the rigors of running and growing a successful business, Cherie manages to balance marriage, family, community service, and philanthropy with exceptionally good humor. She is a living example of what is possible for us all. Resolved, That I Congressman John Garamendi of California's Third Congressional District, do hereby recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Cherie Stephens.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Ramona Prieto, a Peace Officer, Public Servant, Role Model, and one of my district's 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, on the Twenty-Second Day of September, of the Year Two Thousand and Fifteen, Ramona Prieto was recognized as a 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, Assistant Commissioner (Ret.) of the California Highway Patrol, Commissioner Prieto has led by example, rising through the ranks to make a visible and lasting impact over her 38-year career of public service. Assignments took her up and down the state from Los Angeles to the Yuba-Sutter area where eventually she became the highest-ranking woman in CHP history as Assistant Chief and Deputy Commissioner. Whereas, fresh out of the CHP Academy, Prieto was assigned to Central L.A. and made agency history in 1980 when she became the first female motorcycle officer. In 1986, Prieto was assigned to oversee special projects at the academy. In 1990, she was promoted to Sergeant and subsequently to Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Chief, Assistant Commissioner and finally Deputy Commissioner--the post she retired from earlier this year. Whereas, Commissioner Prieto's leadership is characterized by a warm, outgoing nature coupled with the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. She has encouraged others and promoted transparency in agency operations. Thanks to her high level of leadership, more women have been hired into the CHP including her youngest daughter who has followed in her footsteps and entered into law enforcement. Whereas, while Prieto has earned degrees in public administration and leadership, her family and husband, Ed are a top priority. She is ever mindful of setting good examples for their daughters to work hard, be goal-oriented and always strive to make things better. Resolved, That I Congressman John Garamendi of California's Third Congressional District, do hereby recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Ramona Prieto.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Andrea Armstrong, a community leader and one of my district's 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, on the Twenty-Second Day of September, of the Year Two Thousand and Fifteen, Andrea Armstrong was recognized as a 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, committed to the guidance and activities of Williams youth, in addition to serving as a school board member for 20 years, Andi has been a key organizer and speaker for the `Every 15 Minutes' program in schools. As a teenager, Andi was in a serious car accident involving a drunken driver. She has shared her story across the North State to encourage students to consider the consequences of drinking and driving or being a passenger in a car driven by an impaired driver. Whereas, Andi's leadership was fundamental in the development and completion of the downtown mural project. The mural is the pride and the focal point in the City of Williams. She served for 7 years as President of Citizens for a Better Williams, dedicated to the improvement of the historic downtown business district. Andi organized the City of Williams annual events and parades while developing a Summer concert series in the park. Full of fun, residents will often see Andi serving strawberry shortcakes outfitted in the old-fashioned Car-Hop tradition. Whereas, in 2012, local hero Sgt. Alejandro Jauregui lost both legs below the knees in Afghanistan. Andi, an Army Mom, orchestrated his homecoming. With over 200 town folks and veterans cheering and waving flags in the center of town, they honored and welcomed Sgt. Jauregui home. Later, Sgt. Jauregui received a home from ``Homes for our Troops'' in Woodland. It was Andi who spearheaded a fundraiser that generated over $10,000 to help pay for handicap accessible home features. Whereas, an inspiration to many and admired by all, Andi goes above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that a call for help is answered. Resolved, That I Congressman John Garamendi of California's Third Congressional District, do hereby recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Andrea Armstrong.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Barbara Christwitz, a community leader and one of my district's 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, on the Twenty-Second Day of September, of the Year Two Thousand and Fifteen, Barbara Christwitz was recognized as a 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, Barbara Christwitz is the founder of Citizens Caring 4 Clearlake, a non-profit organization that leads neighborhood clean ups of trash and debris. She is dedicated to making Clearlake a better place. Whereas, in addition to Citizens 4 Clearlake, Barbara has been an active community member with an extensive volunteer resume. She volunteers for the Lake County Time Bank and Lake County Coop and is a coordinator of monthly Peace Prayer dances. Barbara helped establish the Highlands Senior Service Center Garden and is a leader in the Girl's Circle sponsored by the Lake County Family Resource Center. Whereas, Barbara has been a tutor specialist at Yuba Community College for the past ten years. She is an amazingly giving person with an inexhaustible spirit who takes pride in her community. Resolved, That I Congressman John Garamendi of California's Third Congressional District, do hereby recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Barbara Christwitz.