John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Susan Young an Educator, Agriculture Advocate, 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, Susan Young was recognized as a 2015 Woman of the year. Whereas, Susan Young is and has been an Agriculture teacher at Sutter Union High School for the past 35 years. She and her husband live in Live Oak and farm in Meridian. Whereas, during Susan's tenure at Sutter Union High School, she has served as a Future Farmers of America Advisor and has been involved in numerous activities promoting agriculture in the Yuba/Sutter area and at state, national, and international levels. Whereas, Susan is actively involved in the American Boer Goat Association, Northern California Meat Goat Association, and the Morgan Horse Association. Her participation on the Yuba-Sutter Livestock Committee and Youth in Ag has helped support and promote our region. Whereas, Susan has positively impacted countless young people throughout her long career as an outstanding teacher, mentor, and role model. She has instilled the values of hard work, dedication, and love of agriculture to all who have surrounded her. Her gift is her ability to reach students from all walks of life and motivate them to do their best. Resolved, That I Congressman John Garamendi of California's Third Congressional District, do hereby recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Susan Young.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Sergeant Randall Boggs, a man who has truly devoted himself to public service. Mr. Boggs was hired as a Police Officer by the Fairfield Police Department on September 18, 1989 and over the duration of his career worked in various capacities which included: Narcotic Investigations, Patrol, Special Operations, Major Crimes Investigation, Mobile Field Force, and the Fugitive Apprehension Team. On April 19, 2002 he was promoted to Police Corporal where he served for five years before being promoted to Police Sergeant on February 2, 2007. As a Police Sergeant, Mr. Boggs consistently assisted City Management during changes in leadership and command staff, ensuring that the Fairfield Police Department upheld the highest operational standards during those times. Additionally, Mr. Boggs assumed the Police Lieutenant's position twice and managed Police Bureau operations. Sergeant Boggs is a skilled team leader who has led numerous operations with exceptional professionalism and character. He has been a valued public servant in which his hard work and commitment to the public safety have made him a model representative of the law enforcement community.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our Republican colleagues for reminding us that this Nation is dependent upon those men and women that serve as police officers, as deputy sheriffs, and in other positions. Certainly, the deaths that we have seen and the murders that we have seen in recent days are a tragedy, and they cannot go without our notice. I appreciate it. I don't, however, think it is the President's fault, so let us move on here. I want to talk about something that is coming up here in the next couple of days, an extremely important issue for all of us. While violence in America and violence against police officers are important issues, this issue is also extremely important. The Congress of the United States is going to take up the issue of the Iran deal, the nuclear deal between the P5+1--China, Russia, Germany, France, United Kingdom, and the United States--negotiated over the course of 2-plus years an agreement with Iran that would block Iran's ability to create a nuclear weapon. Prior to this agreement, the Iranian Government, in secret, was rapidly moving towards the development of a nuclear weapon. They had created an infrastructure that included the various centrifuges to concentrate the uranium into low-enriched uranium and then on into highly enriched uranium, which is the uranium that is necessary for a nuclear weapon. They are also in the process of building a heavy water reactor that would be capable of producing plutonium, the other route to a nuclear weapon. This was done in secret over many years, dating back probably 15, maybe even 20 years. For the last 10 years, the United States has placed sanctions on Iran to try to convince them that they should not be developing a nuclear weapon, that there would be significant economic sanctions and other sanctions imposed on the country. Those sanctions did not go successfully. The Congress of the United States added sanctions. I, together with many of my colleagues here, I think almost unanimously on the floor of the House voted to impose those ever harsher sanctions, but it didn't work until the P5+1 got together. Secretary Clinton at that time, 3 years ago, 4 years ago, worked with those countries, persuading them to sit down at the table together with the United States to see if it was possible to negotiate an agreement with Iran that would prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon. This spring, the agreements began to come together, and in June, July, the agreements were culminated. I want to talk tonight about those agreements and what they mean to the United States, to the Middle East, and to the world. The very short way of saying this is that this agreement is the most recent and the most significant nonnuclear proliferation agreement in the last decade, maybe even longer. Iran was very, very close to a nuclear weapon, so much so that it was believed that they could have a nuclear weapon very soon. Perhaps in 3 to 5 months, they could have material for perhaps nine weapons and be able to perfect those weapons into a bomb that could be delivered through their missile systems or through some mechanism. Where are we today? We are going to vote. As I understand, I think there is a rule that just came across the desk a few moments ago that would put us in line to vote up or down on the Iranian agreement, and I understand that that vote will be taking place on Friday of this week-- a very, very significant moment in the history of nuclear proliferation or nonproliferation. Let's take a look at where we are. First, the agreement came about as a result of six nations, the largest economies in the world, sitting down and negotiating with Iran. What did those countries think about the deal that they signed onto? This isn't just the United States. This deal was signed onto by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the United States. So, if the United States Congress--the House and the Senate--were to trash this agreement, what do those countries think? We don't have to guess what they think. They actually have said, categorically, their position on the deal, and their position is clear. We signed onto it, they said. We agreed to this deal, and here is what we think if the United States Congress negates this deal. Let's start with the French. Frederic Dore, the French Embassy Deputy Chief of Mission, said this in meetings with the United States Senate-- and I understand that we will be meeting with the representatives of these countries later this week. The position of the French is: World powers have secured the best deal possible with Iran. The best deal possible. All right. How about Germany? The German Government's position is--as stated by Philipp Ackermann, the Acting German Ambassador to the United States, before the U.S. Senate and, again, in the Foreign Policy magazine, on August 6, 2015-- the prospect of the rejection of a deal makes us nervous. It would be a nightmare for every European country if this deal is rejected. Then there is the United Kingdom, again, in the Foreign Policy magazine, on August 6, in words similar to this, or, perhaps, these exact words were said to the U.S. Senate a couple of weeks ago: If Congress rejects this good deal and the U.S. is forced to walk away, Iran will be left with an unconstrained nuclear program with far weaker monitoring arrangements than the current international consensus on sanctions, and the current international consensus on sanctions would unravel, and international unity and pressure on Iran would be seriously undermined. The P5+1 all signed onto the agreement, and all but the United States has said categorically: Therefore, the agreement. They are not looking to renegotiate, only the United States. So it is up to us, the Members of Congress, to decide whether to stay with the agreement that was negotiated by the United States Government and five other countries and confirmed by the European Union and the United Nations. So where do we go? Let's assume for a moment that the Senate and the House reject the deal. Will these countries come back to the negotiating table? The information we have from the meeting with the United States Senators--and all of these countries were there--was, no, they are not going to go back to the negotiating table. I think I said ``all of these countries.'' I don't think China and Russia were at that meeting. Yet the word is that they are not going to go back to the negotiating table, so we would have to negotiate by ourselves. Keep in mind that we attempted to do that for many, many years without any success. It was only when all of these countries got together that the sanctions really hit Iran in such a way that they decided to come to the table and to make the agreement which is now before the Congress. Let's go about that deal. What is it? This is basically what it is here. The deal blocks for at least 15 years--and, quite possibly, indefinitely into the future--Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. I am going to come back to this timeline, but I want to go here first. So no deal. Without a deal. If the United States Congress this week and next week vote to do away with the deal, then where are we? Iran has sufficient low enriched uranium and the ability to further enrich that uranium to highly enriched uranium--in other words, weapons grade uranium--for approximately nine nuclear bombs. The number of centrifuges that they presently have are some 19,000 centrifuges, and that would be used to complete the enrichment process. Then the time to produce a bomb's worth of material--highly enriched uranium--is a couple of months, 2 or 3 months. Presumably, under the present situation, with no deal, Iran would be able to move forward, as they have been in the past, for the full development of nuclear weapons within a matter of months. That is not a good situation. However, with a deal, where are we? Iran's low enriched uranium and what amount of highly enriched uranium they have would be significantly reduced to an amount that would be insufficient to make even one nuclear weapon, and there would be verification procedures to assure that they would not be able to make any additional nuclear weapons. The number of centrifuges that they would be able to have are old, antiquated, and would be some 6,000-plus, and all four pathways to a nuclear bomb are blocked. That is the choice we have. That is the choice we have. Now, what does this mean over time? Over time, for a long time--25 years or more--the implementation of additional protocols, commitments to reprocess plutonium, and the nonproliferation treaty obligations remain in place indefinitely into the future--way beyond 25 years. So, as for the nonproliferation treaty, they have upped it once more. They have agreed to it again. Now, granted, they weren't paying attention to it in the past, but now we have verification procedures. Secondly, there would be continuous surveillance of uranium mines and mills so that we know what they are doing. Are they mining uranium? What are they doing with it? What are their mills doing? That would continue for 25 years. There would be continued surveillance of centrifuge production for 20 years. Now, you don't make highly enriched uranium in procedures other than centrifuges unless you go to some very, very advanced procedures, which we do not believe Iran can do, and those procedures that are currently available to Iran and would be into the future are monitored for 20 years. The low enriched stockpile, which is several thousand kilograms, would be reduced and capped at 300 kilograms, and there would be no further enrichment for new highly enriched uranium beyond a very, very small amount for research purposes; and the heavy water reactor that could produce plutonium within a matter of a couple of years would be, basically, decommissioned and be unable to produce plutonium, and that would go for the next 15 years. In the short period of time, 10 years to 15 years, these other procedures that prevent the operation of the centrifuges would be in place. This is how you block the path to nuclear weapons. All of these procedures are in place. Scientists, physicists, generals, and others have all looked at this and have all come to the conclusion that, hey, this works. This will block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for a minimum of 15 years, probably 20 years, and assuming that we are able to hold them to the agreement, 25 years and beyond. That is the nonproliferation treaty. Now, all of this, of course, is dependent upon verification. We don't trust Iran. We don't need to trust Iran. In fact, we should go into this not trusting Iran. Therefore, do we have sufficient verification procedures in place to hold Iran to the deal? The answer is yes. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, is and has been for decades the United Nations' watchdog for the nonproliferation treaty. They have been in Iran in the past. They have observed cheating. They have observed obfuscation. However, under the new agreement, the doors are open to all of the facilities that are known to be involved in the nuclear production and the nuclear bomb activities. There is an additional procedure that, within 24 days, should there be an indication of a site that is not now known to be involved in nuclear activity, the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, would be able to observe what is going on at that site. As for the other sites-- the secret sites of the past--we would have the IAEA observing, monitoring, and verifying that the agreement is being held to its standard. We also have other methods of knowing what is going on in Iran. Nuclear material leaves a radiation signature. We have the capability of reading those signatures and understanding in detail what is going on at any particular site--past, present, and into the future. The verifications that are in this treaty are built upon the fact that we do not trust Iran, and, therefore, these verification procedures are the most robust, comprehensive, and extensive in any proliferation treaty with Russia or anybody else. So that is in place. Now, what if they do cheat? If they do cheat and if they do not honor the agreement, we will know. That is what the verification is all about. It is agreed by the P5+1--that is the United Kingdom, which is Britain; France; Germany; Russia; China; the U.N.; and the European Union--that should there be a breach of the procedures in this deal that the sanctions--the toughest of them--would automatically snap back into place and would continue to apply the kind of economic-social pressure on Iran that brought them to the negotiating table in the first place. Can we trust these countries to snap back? I believe we can. It is an agreement that they have made not just with the United States but with each other. Now, if they don't, we still have our own sanctions, which are tough, which provide us with an ability to put a lot of pressure on Iran, even though not as much as the other countries together with us could do; but, nonetheless, those sanctions are always available to us now and on into the future should Iran renege in any way on this deal. There are a couple of other things about this that we need to consider. There is a lot of talk that this deal would free a vast amount of money that Iran has had sequestered--having been known to get their hands on a vast amount of money. The numbers bandied about are $150 billion. It has been said by the Treasury Department and by the Secretary of State that the amount is actually closer to $100 billion. That is a lot of money. There is great fear--and, I think, appropriately--that Iran would use that money to advance, enhance, and increase its support of terrorism around the world--specifically in the Middle East--and against Israel. I suppose that is a possibility. But when an analysis is done of that money, about $40 billion of that $100 billion is owed to other countries and other entities outside of Iran. So as soon as that sanction is removed and that money is available, then $40 billion of the $100 billion is not available to Iran. It is in some other country's hand. The remaining money presumably could be used for support of terrorist activities. However, we should keep in mind that Iran has been heavily hit by the existing sanctions, so much so that their economy is in terrible condition. Their infrastructure, specifically in the oil arena, is woefully old, inadequate, and not capable of significant production. So they are going to need to invest a lot of money in that and in other infrastructure. How much money would be available for terrorism? Far more than we would want. And, therefore, we need to be certain that our support for those countries that are fighting the terrorist activity in the Middle East and beyond have the full support of the United States Government, people, and our Treasury. It is going to cost us some money, but this is something we are going to have to do. We must make certain that Israel has whatever it needs to counter whatever terrorist threats there may be and whatever threats there may be in the more conventional military sense. Already we are preparing to ship to Israel our most advanced fighters, the F-35, which is just now coming off our production lines, and there will be a lot of other equipment made available. Certainly, with regard to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, we will continue to work with Israel very closely as we have for many, many years, in fact, decades. All of that is there. We also need to be aware that the other Gulf state countries and other countries in the area that have been subject to Iranian attacks and trouble need our support. We should also be willing, as we have in the past and as we are committed to now, to provide them with the support that they need to push back not only on terrorism, but on overt Iranian military activity. So here we are. Deal? No deal? No deal. Is there a better deal? Highly unlikely that the P5+1 will ever come back together again to negotiate a better deal. So we would probably almost certainly have to do it by ourselves. We have already proved in the past, before the P5+1 went into existence, that we were not successful alone negotiating a deal with Iran. The sanctions by our country alone were insufficient. But, as a global community, we were sufficient. And that is where the P5+1 comes in. Listen carefully to what those countries are saying about a renegotiation, ``not likely.'' So where are we? I believe we have to support this deal that was put together by these six major countries, supported by the European Union and the United Nations. This is the path that would block all paths to a nuclear weapon that Iran might be able to pursue for at least the next 15 years and beyond. I ask my colleagues to look hard at this. Unfortunately, a lot of the newspapers are portraying this as a partisan fight. I don't believe it is. I know that many of my colleagues on the Democratic side and certainly what appears to be most Republicans, if not all, are opposed to the deal. I am certain many of them have their own reasons for that opposition. But I think, when you take a comprehensive look at this deal, when you look at all of the elements, that is, what happens if there is no deal and Iran can immediately restart its nuclear weapons program, you go, ``Whoa. That is not a good thing.'' On the other hand, if this deal holds, then Iran will be prevented from having a nuclear weapon for at least 15 years, quite probably 20 years. Should they continue to honor the nonproliferation treaty, then it would go on indefinitely. That is a good thing. And, therefore, I support this negotiated deal and I ask my colleagues to do the same. With that, Mr. Speaker, I have completed my time on the floor. I notice that two of my colleagues are here to speak to the passing of one of our Members of this House who served here for many, many years.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I along with Congressman Mike Thompson rise today to recognize Raymond Simonds, an outstanding member our community and our friend, for his 40 years of service as a member and past president of the Solano County Fair Association Board of Directors. Over the years, Raymond has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the diverse and changing needs of the county fair. Following his original appointment to the Board of Directors, Raymond has revitalized the county fairgrounds by consistently recruiting new and innovative attractions. In addition to his thirty years of leadership on the county fair's racing committee, Raymond has repeatedly distinguished himself as a true supporter of vibrant local traditions and community involvement. Raymond's service will stand as an enduring inspiration to the next generation of Solano County's leaders. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that, on behalf of the grateful residents of California's Third and Fifth Congressional Districts, we recognize Mr. Simonds for his forty years of dedicated service, and we wish him well as our best wishes for his continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, we had a most interesting discussion on coal. Let's continue on with natural resources for a few moments here. I represent a good portion of the State of California. I put this map up as an opportunity for interested parties to observe what is happening in the State of California. We are well into the fourth year of our drought in California. You can see from this map, in 2003, we had a serious drought, the yellow. We are now looking at July 1, 2014. The yellow is now just a small part of the State of California, meaning it is still serious. It is mostly out in the delta, out in the desert and in southern California, Imperial Valley, part of San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino County. And there is a little bit of drought up here in the far north, north coast area, in Del North County. The red and the brown, that is really, really serious. So California is really in a very serious state of hurt at the moment. The drought is severe. It is having an enormous impact not just in the San Joaquin Valley, but really throughout the entire State of California. Twenty-five percent water reduction is mandated by the State for the entire State. And so, in southern California, central California, northern California, that dramatic reduction in the consumption of water is well underway. I live here in the central part, in the delta of California, which I will talk about at some length. Three weeks ago this House passed legislation to address this issue, the Valadao bill. What it really was all about was a relaxation of the environmental protections and, thereby, a mechanism to basically take what water remains in northern California here in the Sacramento Valley and transport it down into the San Joaquin Valley here. It is basically the classic water grab, which we have seen so much of over the years. While all of that talk is going on here in Washington, D.C., what is happening is that California is doing what it has done so very well, and that is mine not coal, which we heard about from our colleagues from the coal states, but, rather, mine water. This map basically shows what is happening in the aquifers of California. In June of 2002, you see a lot of green. The aquifers, while still depleted, were thought to be in pretty good shape. In 2008, as a result of expansion of agriculture in cities and communities throughout California, the mining of water was going on so much so that we are now beginning to see these yellow and brown areas show up. As the drought continued on from 2008 to 2014, we are beginning to see the very severe overdraft of the aquifers of California. Will these aquifers rebound when the rains return? Perhaps. But we also know that many of them will not. And the result of this extraordinary overdrafting of the aquifers in California will place in jeopardy many, many communities, agricultural communities as well as the human communities. We know that down here in the San Joaquin Valley along the eastern side communities are simply out of water. The aquifers have been mined, overdrafted, to the point where there is no more ability to draw from the aquifers, and these communities are out of water today. Extraordinary efforts are underway to provide these communities, many of whom are low-income communities with very little resources of their own, unable to dig deeper wells to provide themselves with water. So part of the bill that passed 3 weeks ago attempted to address this, but in a very insufficient way. There are alternatives. There are ways that California can and must deal with the drought, and they basically are short term, immediate, and long term. That legislation has been introduced. I draw the attention to the Huffman bill, which is a comprehensive effort to deal with California's both short-term and long-term efforts. I also draw attention to the Napolitano bill and basically draw your attention to how it should not be done, which was the Valadao bill. Now, action is underway in the Senate. Our Senator, Dianne Feinstein, is about to introduce legislation. We have not had a chance to see the full legislation. We do know that some of the Huffman bill is introduced into it, and we know that some of the Napolitano bill is also introduced. I want to deal with those opportunities that present themselves and, at the same time, suggest that the Valadao bill should not be passed. There is no need to push aside the environmental laws. There is no need to waive the California constitution and the water rights system in the constitution as the Valadao bill does. It is hidden, but it is there. So what I want to really talk about is how we can address the California water needs. I call this the little sip/big gulp strategy. It is a proposal that I made some 3 years ago and continue to work on. It is a water plan for all of California. It is similar to a program put out by the California administration, not for tunnels, not the California water fix, not the BDCP--all of those programs are simply a way to transfer water--but, rather, what we call a water fix, a water plan, for all of California. Basically, what it involves is a mechanism to provide water for the growing population of California for the agricultural areas, Sacramento and San Joaquin, called the Great Central Valley, for the urban regions here in the bay area and down in southern California. I will go through it very, very quickly. Let's talk about southern California. Basically, it now takes water from northern California from the Colorado River. It brings water into the southern California area, where it is consumed. After being cleaned, it is consumed. It is cleaned yet again, and a great amount of water is dumped then into the Pacific Ocean. You say: Wait a minute. You mean to tell me they are taking water from northern California 400 or 500 miles from the Colorado River, bringing it into southern California, cleaning it, using it once, and then dumping it into the ocean? The answer is yes. That is exactly what has happened, so much so that what I think is probably the fifth biggest river on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere is, in fact, the sanitation plants in southern California. So the first option would be to recycle that water. That is very much a part of the Napolitano bill, as well as the Huffman bill: recycling. Use the water that is already there. Clean it and reuse it. This is actually happening in Orange County down here. Orange County has one of the largest recycling programs anywhere in the United States. Good for them. But that much more can be done. For maybe a billion dollars, a billion and a half dollars, you may be able to get 500,000 acre-feet of new water that is already in southern California. So that is the recycling: San Diego, southern California, the great Los Angeles Basin, as well as the great San Francisco area. Here in Sacramento a major recycling program is now underway by the Sacramento Regional Sanitation District. Good for them. That water will be reused, some of it in the Sacramento area, the rest of it put back in the river as clean water and then available for environmental purposes in the bay as well as for the San Joaquin Valley and, indeed, all the way to Los Angeles. So recycling is very, very much a part of the future of California. A lot of people talk about desalinization. Yes, certainly there is now a desalinization plant that is opening that will be producing a significant amount of water down here in Carlsbad in San Diego County. There is also a desalinization plant in the Santa Barbara area. Those are important. However, desalinization is far more expensive than recycling. The recycled water turns out to be quite cleaner than the ocean water. It doesn't have all the salts and other contaminants because it has already been significantly cleaned in the sanitation process--so recycling. The most important and most immediate and, frankly, underway, as I said, 25 percent reduction in water consumption required in California now, that is called conservation. Clearly, conservation is the simplest, least expensive, and the largest source of water for the future. Conservation is taking place by mandate now, but also a great deal of conservation is taking place in the agricultural areas up and down the coast as well as the agricultural areas in the Monterey Bay area and, actually, everywhere in California. As much as has been done in the years leading to this moment, more can and must be done in conservation, both urban as well as agriculture. Perhaps estimates by the State government indicate somewhere between 3 and 5 million acre-feet of water can be saved through a very robust conservation program up and down the State. Once again, this is in the Democratic legislation that has been put forth by Ms. Napolitano as well as by Mr. Huffman. A major and very, very important element in California water future is a continuation of this conservation program. So you have recycling; you could do desalinization in certain places; and, thirdly, conservation, with conservation being the single biggest and the most inexpensive of all of the options. There are things that need to be done. Money needs to be made available, Federal Government grants as well as State and local government, and participation by farmers and communities up and down the State. Thirdly, we need to develop more storage. Here is where the twin tunnel concept that is being pushed by Governor Brown and the administration makes no sense at all. I want to put up a map that displays this a little better. I am going to go to the really big map here because this really needs to be understood. This is a picture of the delta of California. It is an inland delta. It is the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. It is basically this entire region here. Sacramento is up here; Stockton is here; Contra Costa County, Pittsburg, Antioch down here; and then San Francisco Bay begins right in this area. So what we have here is this inland delta. The San Joaquin River comes up from the south. The Sacramento River, the largest river in California, flows from the north all the way from the Oregon border, Mt. Shasta, flows down through the Sacramento Valley, past the city of Sacramento, and comes in and joins the San Joaquin River in the delta of California. I have had the pleasure to live in this area for the last 40 years and represent this area for, well, since 1974 in one way or another. It is an extraordinary ecological system. The largest estuary, it is the nursery for dozens of different species of salmon and other fish. It is extremely important for the ecology not just of the delta, but also of the entire West Coast. It is from this area that the salmon go out to sea, providing thousands upon thousands of jobs and recreational opportunities--other species, in this area, of fish. It is also a major flyway for the waterfowl that migrate north and south through the area. It is also a very rich agricultural area, several hundred thousand acres of agricultural land, and provides enormous recreational opportunities with more than a thousand miles of rivers, sloughs, and waterways of various kinds. It is in trouble. It is in serious jeopardy because of the transfer of water from the north through the delta to the great pumps here at Tracy that could pump up to 15,000 cubic feet of water per second out of these pumps, sending that to the San Joaquin Valley here, and then on into Los Angeles. This is the hub, and this is where the controversy exists. What the Governor wants to do is to start up here in one of the richest agricultural areas in all of America and basically create two, three intakes and two massive tunnels that come all the way down here to the pumps, in the process destroying a lot of the agricultural land. The pumps are big enough. These tunnels are capable of carrying 15,000 cubic feet of water per second; and with intakes that are at 9,000, you add another intake, you can get the full 15,000. Keep in mind, the Sacramento River flowing past Freeport, Sacramento, flows at somewhere around 15,000 cubic feet per second water into the Sacramento and into the delta. So this system that the Governor wants to build is big enough to literally drain the freshwater from the delta, destroying this extraordinary ecological system, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. So we say to the Governor, why would you build something that has such destructive capacity? A recent report that was done on the economic benefits of this--remember, it is about $15 billion to build these two tunnels and the intakes and the pumps that go with it, about $15 billion. The economic analysis that was recently published in the Sacramento Bee said, well, wait a minute, the total economic benefit of all of this is like $5 billion over the lifetime of the tunnels. That is 50 years. You are spending $15 billion in the next decade or so, and you are only going to get $5 billion of economic benefit? It doesn't make much sense. The other thing that is so foolish about this proposal is there is no storage. There is no storage north of the delta. There is no storage south of the delta. There is no storage in the delta. So where are you going to put the water? It is really nonsense. So what we are saying is don't waste $15 billion or $17 billion here. Don't set up a system that could destroy the ecology of the delta and the agriculture of the delta and put at risk the communities that rely upon the freshwater. Don't do that. There is a better option that is available. We call that the little sip/big gulp. First of all, fix the levees. Fix the levees, the key levees that allow for the transport of water through the delta that protect the communities of the delta, that protect the flow of water as well as the agriculture. Probably less than a billion dollars and you could armor these levees. You could upgrade those levees to maintain the current flow of water, when necessary, through the delta to the pumps, and at the same time protect communities such as Stockton and the communities down here in the Contra Costa area. That is the first thing. That gives you about half of the water that would be needed. So where does the other half come from? The other half is what I call the little sip. I think you can see this on the map. This is the Sacramento deepwater shipping channel. It actually intersects the Sacramento River way up here in Sacramento, taking water, a little bit of water into the shipping channel and coming down here to a community called Rio Vista. About 40 percent of a system is already in existence. If you were to put a fish screen here at the opening on the Sacramento River, allowing 3,000 cubic feet per second of water to flow into the shipping channel, down the shipping channel, capture that water way down here where the shipping channel ends, there are levees on either side of the channel. Capture the water there, and then bring the water across to Old River, which is right here. Bring that water across to Old River, and it goes then to the pumps here at Tracy. So what you have here is a mechanism which we call the little sip, 3,000 cubic feet per second, big enough to be operated virtually every day of the year in a normal water year--not this year with the severe drought, but in a normal water year. Oh, by the way, you could not operate the big tunnels, either. So this big project that the Governor wants to propose could not be used this year because there simply isn't water in the river. But this little project in most every year, both the low flow as well as the high flow in the average year, could take that 3,000 cfs every day, bringing it down to the pumps here at Tracy, delivering 2 million acre-feet of water every year. That is the little sip. When you have the big rain flows, which we hope to have in the future, and actually did have twice this year, you could turn the big pumps on down here, and you could take the rest of the 2 million or 2\1/2\ million acre-feet, giving you the 4\1/2\ million acre-feet that is desired to flow south to southern California and to the San Joaquin Valley. Little sip/big gulp. You have, in fact, protected the delta because you are going to have to maintain the levees, bring them up to code so that they are 100-, 200-year flood levees, and you have set up a mechanism that could not destroy the delta because it is only 3,000 cubic feet per second coming out of the Sacramento River way up high. You avoid all of the destruction that would occur in the Clarksburg-Courtland area up here, that would occur as a result of the three intakes or four intakes that would be built on the Sacramento River, and all of the disruption that would occur as you build these two massive tunnels. These tunnels are 40 feet in diameter. We are talking about, well, actually higher than this ceiling here in the Chamber. This is probably like 30 feet to the ceiling. But it would be 40 feet, two massive tunnels, 40 feet in diameter, that would be drilled down through the delta, through some of the most complex soils anywhere in the United States, disrupting all of this area and creating the opportunity for an existential threat to the delta because they are so big and can take so much water. What would this cost? Maybe a third, maybe less than a third, maybe a quarter, because so much of it is already built. You already have the channel all the way down to here. You would have about a 10- to 12-mile pipeline across the delta into the Old River or a new canal built along the Old River to the pumps at Tracy. It makes a lot of sense. The rest of the money, perhaps another $10 billion or $12 billion that would be otherwise spent on the massive twin tunnels could then be used for storage systems south of the delta. Let me put this down for a second and put up the map of California. Where would those storage systems be? Here is the delta once again. South of the delta there is a reservoir here called San Luis. It needs to be repaired because of earthquake potential. You can expand that. Just to the south, you have Los Banos Grandes Creek. That would be Los Banos Grandes Reservoir. There are numerous reservoirs that could be built along the California aqueduct as it comes into the Central Valley. Most important of all are the aquifers. Remember this: The aquifers of the Central Valley are seriously overdrafted. These are the major storage reservoirs of California. So as water is brought out of the delta, we need to make sure that that water is put in surface storage reservoirs where possible, San Luis, maybe Los Banos Grandes. Los Vaqueros Reservoir here in Contra Costa County needs to be upgraded, added to. So you have these surface storage reservoirs that are certainly going to be necessary, and most important of all, you have got the aquifers. As we look to the future, we need to figure out the hydrological systems to bring water through the canals when it is available and recharge the aquifers of the San Joaquin Valley. Some of them will not be able to be recharged. They are gone. Once you drain those aquifers, they may never be able to recover. But some could be recovered, and those are the ones we need to identify, and we need to recharge them. Similarly, in the Sacramento Valley, north of the delta, there are several storage opportunities available to us. Some of these have been studied. Way up here is the largest reservoir in California, the Shasta Reservoir. There is talk--and it has been studied--to raise the dam and increase the capacity perhaps by 130,000 acre-feet of yield here at Shasta. Further south, not on the river, but an off-river reservoir called Sites Reservoir, which my Republican colleague, Mr. LaMalfa, and I are authoring legislation to build Sites Reservoir, which would take water during the flood flows on the Sacramento off stream, pump it into this reservoir, a very large reservoir, about 1.9 million acre-feet, and that water would then be available to be put back into the Sacramento River for export to the south or for salinity control, freshwater into the San Francisco Bay, and also would create the opportunity for the reoperation, that is, to work in conjunction with Folsom Reservoir here in Sacramento, the Feather River Reservoir, the Oroville Dam and Reservoir, and the reoperation of the Shasta as well as the Yuba reservoirs. In other words, this would great flexibility to the way in which we would then be able to operate the Sacramento River system for the benefit of the environment, for the benefit of exports to the southern valley--San Joaquin Valley, as well as southern California--and for salinity control in the environment of the delta. At the same time, like the San Joaquin Valley, there are enormous aquifers here in the Sacramento Valley that need to be maintained and recharged so that what we could build, if we thought about it in this holistic way, we would build a system that would be conjunctive use, so that when there was a lot of water, we would store that water. We would store it in off- stream reservoirs. We would store in an expanded Shasta. We would store it in the underground aquifers of the San Joaquin Valley or in the reservoirs along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, as well as in southern California. When you recycle in southern California, you could then store that water in the aquifers that exist here in the Los Angeles and the southern California basin. These aquifers actually have greater capacity than the Shasta Reservoir. So you have got the aquifer of the San Fernando. You have got the aquifer of the San Gabriel, the San Bernardino, Orange County, West Basin, and several other smaller aquifers in the Los Angeles Basin. Of course, there are others as you move south towards San Diego. That is the storage system that you would then use in a conjunctive water management program. This is the holistic approach that we need to look at. I call it the little sip in the delta. Build a small facility--3,000 is not small--3,000 cubic feet per second facility, taking that water out of the Sacramento River at Sacramento; put it into the deepwater shipping channel--the Sacramento channel all the way down here just north of Rio Vista--take it across the delta, put it in a canal into Old River to the pumps, 3,000. The remaining water would be taken out of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta when it is available, when the delta smelt and other fish are not at the pumps, and turn the pumps on, sending that water south to be stored or used in the aquifers stored in new surface storage reservoirs along the way. Of course, north of the delta, you would have the surface storage reservoir at Sites and perhaps the enlargement of Shasta, then the ability to use it. So why don't we do it? For the $15 billion that the Governor wants to spend on digging two tunnels that do not create 1 gallon of new water, but do create an existential threat to the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. Don't waste your money. Don't spend $15 billion on a $5 billion benefit--and that is over 50 years. Why would you ever make that investment when you could do something that creates water, creates perhaps as much as 5 million acre-feet of new water for California's future, water that would be available from recycling and storage in southern California aquifers, available from storage north of the delta, the replenishment of the aquifers in the great Central Valley of California, and the creation of new storage surface reservoirs along the way? And most important, conservation--we have to conserve. It is mandated now. It is part of our future. This is a water plan for all California. These ideas are not new. I didn't dream them up, although I put them together. And interestingly enough, 3\1/2\ years ago, when I made this first proposal, about a year later the Governor and the Department of Water Resources put forth a paper called a Water Action Plan for California, and it is exactly the same--without the tunnels. Their Water Action Plan didn't speak to the tunnels. It did speak to storage north of the delta; it did speak to conservation; it did speak to the aquifers; it did speak to desalinization and recycling--all of those things that have been in the water plan for California for about 30 years. This is not new. I have been involved in these issues since the 1970s, and I know that if we were to back away from the twin tunnel proposal, which is so destructive of the delta, and went to the little sip/big gulp strategy, using all of the various mechanisms available to California, we could create maybe 5 million acre-feet of new water. We could address the future drought that California will have again some day in the future. Now, what about today's drought? I want to deal with that. The people of California last November passed a $7 billion water bond. That water bond allows for conservation, replenishment of the aquifers, surface storage--perhaps Sites Reservoir, yet to be determined--and recycling, replenishment of the aquifers and, most important for now, today, money for those communities that are out of water and have no water at all so they can drill their wells deeper or bring in surface water from nearby rivers or communities that may be available. That is a particular problem here in this area of the San Joaquin Valley and a few of the communities up here in the Sacramento Valley and up in the foothills. We need to provide that immediate relief for those areas, and we need to get on with conservation and some of the money that is necessary in order to do that. The water bond is available. That money is going to be coming out over the next 18 months or so as the State of California moves projects forward. Immediately, and this is what I hope would be in the legislation that we should pass here in Washington is that we would use those Federal programs that exist today--and there are a multitude of Federal programs that already exist in Federal law, money that is already appropriated but not focused on the drought, not only in California, but throughout the West. And what I would suggest as we move legislation forward--perhaps this will be in Senator Feinstein's bill. I would hope so. And if not there, as we hopefully all work together on solving the problem of drought in the West, particularly in California, that we focus our attention on the immediate opportunities that the Federal Government can presently present to solve problems. The Environmental Protection Agency has the clean water grant programs. The Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, has the WaterSMART program, which is conservation and recycling. We know that the Army Corps of Engineers has programs. There are other programs spread throughout the Federal Government that, if they were focused immediately on the needs of California and other States, that money could move to solve the community problems. The clean water grant program could be used to provide water programs for those communities that are out of water--the recycling, conservation programs. All of those have money that is presently already appropriated but not focused; and if they focus that money so that it was in coordination, augmented, and supplemented and ahead of the California water bond programs, you could advance the water bond programs by as much as 18 months. It will take that long for California to move that money out of the bond. So move the Federal Government in conjunction, in alignment with the programs that the State of California already is planning to do but doesn't yet have the money available. Put the Federal money there. Do the planning, the engineering, the environmental reviews, if necessary, and you advance so that today's drought can be dealt with. Now that is beginning to make sense. I think we can do this. We need to push aside all of the fighting we have had over these many, many years. Don't take water from somebody, but work on programs to expand the water potential for all California. Don't push aside the environmental laws, because it is, in fact, the environmental laws that protect this largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere--San Francisco Bay and the fishing industry up and down the coast, all the way to the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington. Don't put us in a situation where we are destined to fight, but rather put us in a situation where we can work together. That is my plea to my Republican colleagues who pushed that bill through here basically on a party-line vote and now headed to the Senate. I ask Senator Feinstein to work with those of us that represent the delta and that have worked for generations and decades on how to protect the delta. There is a solution. I call it a little sip/big gulp. You can put any name you want to on it. In fact, the Natural Resources Defense Council came up with a similar program that they called a portfolio approach: conservation; recycling; desalinization, aquifers; storage systems, both large and small, surface and aquifer. It is all there. This is not new. This is working together to solve a major challenge to the largest economy in the United States, the seventh largest economy in the world, the largest population--35 million people. This is a challenge, but this is a challenge we can do. So my plea to anybody that cares to work on water is to work with us. There are ways we can solve and mitigate the current drought and solve the problem for the future drought. It is there. It is not going to be any more expensive than the massive tunnel programs that the Governor is proposing. In fact, if you took that $15 billion and you were to spend it on building Sites Reservoir, expanding reservoirs to the south, putting in the systems for the underground aquifer replenishment and recycling programs in southern California, how much progress could we make? Well, we could solve the problems for the next drought, and we could mitigate and reduce the harm of the current drought. That is what it is all about: working together, taking the best ideas of one group or another. Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered this issue, hopefully making some sense of what is a very complex problem for California and, therefore, for the Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Proclamation: Whereas, friends, colleagues, and the Ethiopian Community and Cultural Center wish to acknowledge a hard-working, beloved, and integral supporter of California's Ethiopian community; Whereas, Behailu Assefa has been an active cultural and business leader on the local, state, and national level; and Whereas, Behailu served as the President of the Ethiopian Community and Cultural Center since its founding in 2001, he has also served as the President of the Ethiopian Community in Minneapolis, was President of the Ethiopian Sports Federation of North America and was a member of the Oakland and City of Bahir Dar Sister City Program; and Whereas, as the founder ASC Engineering Services, Behailu has provided professional certification of electrical products and served clients spanning over 4 continents and 40 states over the span of 20 years; and Whereas, as founder of Terra Global Energy Developers, Behailu has utilized the experiences of Ethiopian American Diaspora and their ingenuity to introduce a new wind energy project to the Ethiopian government; and Whereas, as the co-founder of Global Enterprise Engineering, Behailu has expanded the global presence of his company to Germany, Taiwan, China, Ethiopia, and Senegal; and therefore be it now Resolved, that I, Congressman John Garamendi, of California's 3rd District, do hereby recognize the exemplary service of Behailu Assefa, and encourage all to join me in celebrating him in his lifetime of achievements.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from the delta. This is but one small example of what we ought to be doing, and that is working together to solve very, very complex problems. Unfortunately, the underlying legislation really is not the result of the kind of interaction that is necessary. Mr. McNerney and I represent the delta. That delta is as large as the Westlands Water District, and it also happens to be the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere from Alaska to Chile. It is absolutely an essential element in the environment of the entire West Coast of the United States; yet the underlying legislation ignores the fact that those of us who represent this area have been no part of the legislation. If we work together, we can solve problems such as water hyacinth and the next amendment, which I will be taking up. I want to commend Mr. McNerney for putting forth this amendment and hopefully beginning the interaction necessary to develop a proper water bill for all California.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. We can do this, but we have to work together. Unfortunately, that has not occurred; so I urge my colleagues, the proponents of this bill, to take the time to meet with those of us who will be the losers if this bill moves forward. We can all be winners. I draw your attention to Mr. Huffman's legislation, which is comprehensive, which will work, and which could be integrated into this legislation. In the meantime, I continue to oppose it.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues. We have been here before. I have listened to my colleagues who are the proponents of this bill over the last 5 years. As the previous speaker said, we have gone down this path before. There really is a solution. Unfortunately, I guess all of us, in one way or another, hang on to our past rhetoric and ignore the opportunity that really demands our attention now to develop a comprehensive, good policy for California. There is a lot in this bill that goes in the proper direction, and it is an improvement over the past bills. There is no doubt about it. The issue of moving forward with the projects that are necessary, that is all good, dams and other kinds of programs and the aquifer restoration. It is a good deal. However, in this bill, there are things that are very, very troublesome. You cannot mandate by law the operations of the water systems in California or anywhere else. You cannot specify how they will be operating because you do not know on a day-to-day or a year-to-year or a month-to-month basis what is actually going to be on the ground. So that portion of the bill that sets out those operating procedures should be removed. Goals, yes. Operating procedures, no. It just won't work. As said by both the Federal and State governments, if you were to move this bill forward into law, you would create chaos in California. Every paragraph, every comma, every word, in California water law--both in law and in court decisions--sets the precedent, but, unfortunately, this bill overrides that. We are very close to it. We can put this together. My colleague, Mr. Huffman, has a proposal that is comprehensive, and it ought to be integrated into our programs and it ought to be integrated into this bill. But the kind of compromise and discussion that is necessary to develop a law that actually works has not been undertaken. I would urge my colleagues, the proponents of this bill, to slow it down, to let the State and Federal Governments continue to do what they are doing, and that is to operate this system to the maximum potential despite the fact that there is very, very little water.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, like the previous amendment, is simple but very important. We heard the discussion from Mr. McNerney and supporters of his amendment about the water hyacinth and the endangered species that have plagued not just the California delta, but other parts of the West. It is important. This amendment is also a small but important amendment. It deals with a way of providing a fish screen on the Delta Cross Channel, a very important element in the California water system. Why this hasn't been done before, I don't know. I live within a mile of the Delta Cross Channel, and I have often wondered why the agencies have not pursued a fish screen. They have to close the channel gates when the fish are in the river, thereby providing less water through the delta. So this would simply move it along. These two amendments are an example of what we ought to be doing. Mr. McNerney and I represent the delta, which is 700,000 acres, equal in size to the area that is the principal proponent of the underlying legislation, that is the Westlands Water District. Both are important and critical agriculture areas, both of which need water. The underlying legislation ignores the environmental needs and the agricultural needs of the delta, and in a very complex way provides a mechanism to take water out of the delta without regard to either the environmental or the agricultural or the community needs in the area. It is not going to pass. It should never become law. It is an example of how not to solve California water problems. The way you solve California water problems are with amendments such as Mr. McNerney's or this amendment that I am putting forth and serious discussions between those of us who represent the delta. I would also like to point out to my colleagues who are proponents of this bill that I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River, from the very end of it--that is at San Francisco Bay--to an area 199.6 miles upriver, including virtually all of the rice industry of California, of which there are some 600,000 acres, and nearly half of that acreage is fallow this year. So the drought isn't just about the impact on the San Joaquin Valley system, of which we have heard much debate this morning. It is also about the Sacramento Valley north of the delta, where the drought has had a major impact. California needs to work together in the immediate situation, which it is actually doing. The Federal and State governments' water policy through the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Agency--both the State and Federal Government have done yeoman's work, extraordinary work, stretching the water supplies of California. This bill would override that effort and make it impossible for them to continue. God help us if the drought goes another year--it could--in which case this bill, if it would become law, all that has been done in California over this last 3 years to stretch the water supplies would be pushed aside. We shouldn't do it that way. We should be working together. Mr. Huffman has a good piece of legislation that has already achieved statewide support from water contractors, from those who understand the intricacies of this system. We can do it if we sat down together. And that has not happened. For those of us who represent the delta and north of the delta, we find this to be objectionable and we find it to be rather foolish. There is a middle ground. But don't, as this bill does, push aside the environmental laws, which are the only protections for the largest estuary system on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. Don't do that. Why would you destroy the salmon fisheries? Why would you destroy 700,000 acres and the water supplies for the Bay area? You shouldn't do that. You don't need to do that. There are rational and reasonable ways to solve the California water problem. Some of it is in this bill. The storage systems are good, well done, but don't do that in a way that pushes aside the environmental protections that provide the balance not just for the environment, but for the communities that are affected. Don't do that. We can work together. Just give us a chance to do so, which you have not thus far done. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, we are going to spend about an hour here talking about something that is of great importance to the American people, to the economy, to the strength of America, and, indeed, the discussion we just heard about national security. It is about how we can build the American economy and build jobs for the working men and women of this country, the great middle class. There will be much discussion in the days ahead about the Iran nuclear deal. That will be something that is of importance. But today, one question that we ought to ask each other is: If we don't have a deal, then what? The answer to that is: Nothing good. Let's talk about Make It In America. This is an agenda that the minority whip put together about 4 years ago, and it is about building the American economy, how we can do it. The Make It In America agenda has moved along these last 4 years, almost 5 years now, with numerous pieces of legislation, and we are going to talk about those. Last week, the minority whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, put together a hearing on this subject matter, and those Democrats that have introduced legislation over these many years and have reintroduced that legislation testified at the hearing about their pieces of legislation. The result of that was, wow, what if we did those things? What if we actually passed those pieces of legislation? What if they became law? Well, I tell you what it would mean. What it would mean is an enormous opportunity for this economy to grow and for the great American middle class to enjoy higher wages, more jobs, and more opportunity. Essentially, the legislation came down in these various ways. We had trade legislation. For example, the big discussion we have had over the last 3 months about trade policy and the Trans-Pacific Partnership is extremely important for American manufacturing. Done properly, it probably would grow American manufacturing. On the other hand, what we have seen in the many years previously is that trade policy can hollow out, destroy American manufacturing. So we talked about trade policy. One issue of extreme importance to me is the maintenance of the Buy America provisions. This is law that has been in place for more than 50 years, and it essentially says, if you are going to spend American taxpayer money, then spend it on American-made goods and equipment. Tax policy is extremely important. You can, as present tax policy is set in place, encourage the offshoring of American jobs. American corporations are taking their capital, running off to the lowest wage rate country in the world, planting their capital there, building their manufacturing facilities, and leaving behind the American worker. So there are numerous ideas on tax policy. Energy policy is another issue. We now know that we have had a very robust, large expansion of American energy production, natural gas and oil, so much so that we are likely to ship off in the days ahead liquefied natural gas. Well, if we do a little bit of that, it is probably okay. If we do too much of that, we raise American prices for energy, and then we are going to see less robust American manufacturing. On labor policy, it is about how we encourage labor, wage rates, and the reeducation for those men and women that have lost their jobs. Education and research and development are extremely important. These are the essential elements of the Make It In America policy. We will be talking about all of these today. As my colleagues come in, I want to welcome them to the floor. I see our colleague from the great Northeast, Ann Kuster, here. If you would like to talk about some of your legislation on Make It In America, we would be delighted to have you join us. I know that you have been working on this a long time in your area, and you have introduced bills in the last Congress and you have new bills in this Congress.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Ms. Kaptur, thank you so very, very much. You talked about things that are extremely important along the way: the trade policy, our tax policy, the escape of American capital, leaving American workers behind, economic theory, and capital and labor resources. If one of those leaves--in this case, capital--then the American worker is left behind. Mr. Speaker, the Make It In America agenda is all about rebuilding the foundation of America's economic growth. We can do that in several ways. I am going to wrap up with a very quick rendition of several policy opportunities that present themselves to us. First of all, at the bottom of that list--not because it is at the bottom, but because it is just there--is the issue of infrastructure. We are faced with a huge challenge, one that, unfortunately, I am afraid the Congress will, once again, duck the challenge of creating a robust program to revitalize the American infrastructure. Infrastructure is the foundation. It is the sanitation, the water systems; it is the roads, the airports; it is the rivers, the ports, and transportation system. The President has introduced, in the last Congress, the GROW AMERICA Act. We now call it the GROW AMERICA Act 2. Unfortunately, this week, tomorrow, our majority, our Republican colleagues, are failing to address this issue. Instead, they are going back to a childhood game called kick the can--in this case, kick the can down the road for another 6 months instead of putting in place a long-term, 5- or 6-year transportation program that can accomplish all of these things--the rail, the buses, the ports, the bridges, the highways, the sanitation systems, and the communications systems. The leadership in the House on the Republican side is simply missing the fundamental necessity of infrastructure. By the way, Mr. Speaker, this goes back to the Founding Fathers. George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to develop an economic plan. He came back with one called manufacturers; in that was an infrastructure. Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, said that we must build the roads--postal roads at that time--we must build the canals, and we must build the ports if we are going to have a strong economy. The infrastructure is critically important to the Make It In America agenda. Another one, Mr. Speaker, is using our tax dollars to build the American economy to make it in America. This is a story of two bridges. Very, very quickly, one bridge on the West Coast, this is called the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, a multibillion dollar project, the other one on the East Coast, and this is on the Hudson River in New York City, the Tappan Zee Bridge. The San Francisco Bay Bridge, in a fit of what I call stupidity, the State of California decided that they would seek Chinese steel because it was supposed to be 10 percent cheaper to build the bridge. Well, the result was 6,000 jobs were in China, a brand-new steel mill, the most high-tech steel mill in the world--and, for America, taken to the cleaners. It was a significant overrun of multimillions of dollars, a delay of years and years, steel that was shoddy, welds that were shoddy, and a lesson for America: spend our tax money on American-made equipment and supplies. Buy American steel. Those 6,000 jobs could have been in America. That steel mill could have been in America, and the shoddy work would not have occurred. New York decided to buy American steel. So what happens--on time and under budget and 7,728 American jobs were created. It is the story of two coasts: California, stupid policy; New York, wise policy. Spend the American taxpayer dollars on American-made goods and equipment. One final thing, Mr. Speaker, and then I am going to return this over to the speaker. I don't know if you can see that, but that is a liquefied natural gas tanker. America later this year will begin to export natural gas in the form of LNG, liquefied natural gas. This is a big deal and a big potential for the gas industry. They are going to make a lot of money because the cost of natural gas around the world is maybe twice to three times what the price would be in the United States, so the gas companies are all for shipping gas overseas. We need to be careful about this because, if we ship too much overseas, then we are going to raise the price. The Cheniere facility in the Gulf Coast will take 100 tankers, and I have legislation that says, if we are going to ship a strategic national asset overseas, then we ought to take care of the rest of the national security. Shipbuilding is absolutely essential. American mariners, captains, and seamen and -women are absolutely essential for the American defense and security. Make it in America, ship it on American-built tankers--we are talking about tens of thousands, indeed, over 100,000 jobs and a supply chain for jobs all across the country. Mr. Speaker, I have got just a few minutes, and I notice that my colleague from New York is here. The East-West show is back in force. Mr. Tonko, thank you for coming in so quietly. I didn't see you on my left side. Please join us, and let's talk about Make It In America.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Ms. Kaptur, thank you so very much for bringing us the message from America's heartland. And, by the way, agriculture is also a manufacturing industry. The farmer grows, but then the food processors are manufacturing that and bringing added value and a major part. You are quite correct about the escape of capital, using tax policy and trade policy to encourage American companies to take their capital and build overseas, leaving American workers behind.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I am going to pass this discussion on to a lady who knows a lot of manufacturing. I now yield to the gentlewoman from the great State of Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the heart of the manufacturing center in the United States. Thank you so very much for joining us this afternoon.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We had a job fair out in California 2 weeks ago, and I was talking to some of the folks that were looking for a job. Many of them had gone to the community college, taken a preapprenticeship training program so that they would be prepared and have the necessary education to go into the apprenticeship program. That is a very, very important part of the Make It In America agenda: education coupled with labor. It is a very, very powerful piece of this. Thank you so very much for participating today. Closing comment?

Mr. GARAMENDI. In terms of public policy, we have passed a new piece of legislation, the Education and Workforce Innovation Act, last year. And it seems to me that that piece of legislation, which provides Federal assistance for various kinds of workforce preparation, education, and other activities, to the extent that that can be brought into and connected with the apprenticeship programs that those labor unions that you just described are running out there, we might see even a more robust program within these. And these are employer and union, both of them participating in the apprenticeship programs.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson Lee. I really appreciate it. As we talk about each of these things, you are talking labor and education and the way they come together and, in doing so, increasing the productivity and the ability of an American worker to get a job in the new manufacturing world in which we are living. These things do come together, all of these pieces of the puzzle, 34 Members of the Caucus, over 100 pieces of legislation in all of these areas. Joining us, Mr. Norcross, thank you very much for joining us today. You were, I think, introduced very nicely by the minority whip. Welcome. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Perhaps it was your testimony at the hearing that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) put together, and they were talking about job training programs. And I believe one witness, maybe you, said that the largest technical training program in the Nation are the apprenticeship programs that the unions run. So the electricians union, IEBW, their apprenticeship program, the plumbers union and steelworkers and so forth each have an apprenticeship training program. And, when taken together, it is the single largest job training program in the Nation. You said you spent some time at that?

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much, Mr. Norcross. I knew that you had come out of a family that was in the building trades. You are an electrician, and you are also a Member of Congress. So you are bringing something very valuable, and that is hands-on experience in the working world, where the middle class has seen their part of the American economy stall out, not able to climb ahead. But over the last 20 years, we have seen this American middle class basically just barely able to hold its ground. And one of the reasons is the enormous decline in the manufacturing industry in this Nation and, also, that this Nation has not been keeping up with the needs of infrastructure. So as we look at the Make It In America agenda, yes, education is absolutely important so that the workers of today and tomorrow are prepared for the kind of jobs that are out there. Electricians--I am sure you can speak to this--when you started in the business, it was one kind of skill set and, as you proceeded, you have found a need for additional. Would you like to talk about how that works and the way it might integrate with the small modular reactors?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you. I know that your previous work before you came to Congress several years ago was in the State of New York working on the innovation economy. You certainly have ramped up innovation economy in the State of New York, and now you are bringing that experience here with legislation. The Make It In America agenda, I am going to put it back up very, very quickly here because you talked about this. The Make It in America agenda is about the middle class; it is about rebuilding the middle class. Thirty-four members of the Democratic Caucus talked last week about their legislation dealing with trade and taxes, energy, labor, education, research, and infrastructure, about how that constellation of issues comes together to boost the American middle class, to give every American an opportunity for that middle class job. So it is there. I see we are about to be out of time, or maybe we are already out of time, so I am going to say I want to thank my colleagues and Mr. Hoyer for leading us in this. Mr. Tonko, you have got 30 seconds to close.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am going to move this thing along. I see several of our other colleagues have joined us here. Sheila Jackson Lee, you said you had a brief presentation. Please take the floor, then Mr. Norcross, and then we will--Marcy Kaptur is here from Ohio. Here we go.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.