John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize California Chrome and his team for their outstanding performance in the 2014 Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont Stakes. California Chrome was the winner of the Kentucky Derby on May 3 and the Preakness on May 17, and had an excellent showing at the Belmont Stakes on June 7, where he tied for fourth place. His family, Perry and Denise Martin reside in Yuba City, which is in my district. I am proud to have them as constituents. The Martins bought California Chrome's mother for only $8,000, a bargain by horse racing standards, and the horse's success is a true ``rags-to-riches'' story. The Martins conducted thorough research in selecting the dam, Love the Chase, which further contributed to California Chrome's success. California Chrome inspired thousands of fans and brought a renewed sense of excitement to the races. His success shows us that no matter our background, we can rise to greatness with a little bit of luck and a lot of hard work. His family has also made a number of important contributions to California and our entire nation. Perry Martin has worked on electronic failure analysis and environmental quality testing at McClellan business park north of Sacramento for more than a decade. He is the author of a 500-page textbook titled ``Electronic Failure Analysis Handbook'' and has briefed Congress and the Air Force Chief of Staff regarding avionics and weapons systems. Congratulations to California Chrome, his jockey Victor Espinoza, trainer Art Sherman, the Martin family, and their co-owner Steve Coburn. California Chrome is a source of pride for California's 3rd Congressional District and I look forward to seeing all that he accomplishes in the future.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I ask to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, at the subcommittee, with great respect, I respectfully disagree with you. This does not change law. It simply writes into the law an extension of what is already in this bill, and that is, it calls for a report. It also fences off a certain amount of money, in this case $15 million. That is really the ante, the beginning of a very expensive process. It fences it off until we have that information report from the Pentagon. I think that is the wise thing to do. In fact, the appropriation bill in many, many respects changes laws, and I think we are all aware of that. I am also aware that I have yet to overcome a point of order, but there is always the first time, and we can be hopeful that this might be the first. But I draw the attention of the chair, the ranking members, and anybody else that cares to listen, be prepared to spend somewhere between $15- and $20 billion if we go forward with both the B-61 and the retrofitting to the F-35 so that it will be dual-capable--capable of both conventional as well as nuclear weapons. I think we better know where we are going, have a good sense of the total cost, and also have a very good sense of where our European allies want this to be, and I think they ought to also pay for it.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would much prefer if you could say this is really wise and information that we need and that we would add this to the bill somewhere along the process. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I would prefer to do, sir, is to proceed and to continue the discussion. I think this is an important matter. Mr. Chairman, I don't know how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, perhaps I will just wrap, and then we will take up your point of order and see where that goes with it. This is an extremely important issue. It has to do with our relationships with NATO. It has to do with cost-sharing by the NATO community, who will eventually acquire these planes, and it also has to do with the B-61 bomb, which is an extraordinarily expensive program that may or may not fit into the future for NATO or even for us. So this amendment is designed to give us the information that we need and, until we have it, it prevents the use of the $15 million. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I took up this issue by attempting to strike the $15 million that is appropriated in this bill for the initial phases of figuring out how to make the F-35 dual- capable, that is, capable of handling both conventional as well as nuclear weapons. This is the opening of a very, very expensive process. Probably well over somewhere between 10 and $20 billion will be spent on this entire program. The F-35 is our plane of the future. It is extremely important for the defense of this Nation. However, the issue of whether that plane should be dual-capable or not really revolves around the role that the F-35 dual-capable plane will play in the European theater. Presently, we are deploying in Europe the B-61 bomb. That bomb is now being life-extended, rebuilt for the purposes of doing what it has done before, that is, to sit there basically unused. It will be both a tactical as well as a strategic weapon. There is a major cost factor that will affect this budget and future budgets for years to come with this initial decision that we are now making. What this amendment does is to simply build off a portion of the bill that is already in place. It does call for a report. This amendment fences off the $15 million, says you can't use it until such time as the details that I add to the existing language of the bill before us-- those details were read by the reader a moment ago. Let me just quickly go through them: Until the House of Representatives has delivered--that is, until the military has delivered to the House of Representatives defense committees a report, among other matters, on the total anticipated cost of making the F-35 joint fighter nuclear-capable; Next, the number of aircraft expected to have such capability; Next, the total number of tactical B-61s expected to undergo the life-extension program, including the total anticipated cost specific to the tactical B-61. This is critical information that we have. The language in the bill is okay, but it doesn't give us the specificity that we need to make the decision, and frankly, I don't think we ought to start down this path until we really have some better notion of where we are going with the expenses of this. We also know that the European community is, at best, ambivalent about what to do with this issue, and they certainly are ambivalent about whether they are going to pay their share of the costs of the airplanes that they will eventually acquire that will have this dual capability. So big questions out there. This is an amendment attempting to gather the specific information that we should have to make a wise and informed decision in the future.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with a profoundly important issue that will be before the House of Representatives and this Nation for the next three decades at least. This is an amendment that deals with the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35, and the dual capability of that fighter, basically meaning how to retrofit or make that fighter capable of handling the B-61 nuclear weapon. This is a weapon that is principally designed for our allies, to be used in Europe. It is a weapon that is now in the process of being life-extended at a cost of several billion dollars over the next decade. The question is, Do we need to revamp the F-35 in such a way as to be able to handle both conventional as well as nuclear weapons? This is the question before us. It is a question that involves our allies, and it is a very, very expensive issue that we must deal with. If we just continue on, we will spend billions upon billions of dollars on a system that may or may not be desired by our allies around the world. We are just pushing our way forward here without really considering all of the issues involved. This amendment that I brought forth on the floor today is really the wake up to this larger issue and the extraordinary expense and the ramifications that it has with not only our allies but with potential adversaries around the world. What I really would like to do is to expand upon a study that has already been put into this legislation, a study that Mr. Quigley has successfully brought in, and expand upon it so that the report that comes back to us be more full, providing more information. We need that information in order to make a wise decision here about how we are going to proceed. This is an issue that the Armed Services Committee is wrestling with, as well as, I am certain, the Appropriations Committee. Later in this process, when we get to the end of this bill, I will have another amendment that I will put forward that will fence off this $15 million until such time as that report comes in, and I would recommend that that report be more full and more complete. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. That is true. I intend to withdraw my amendment in hopes that we could, at the end of the bill, undertake a more full report and fence off the $15 million until that comes forward. I am not asking for a commitment now, but as we proceed through this bill, if the members of the Appropriations Committee, the chair and the ranking member specifically, would consider that language, it would be much appreciated.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the history of the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church. As told by the church itself: ``Bethel African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E.) Church, under the leadership of Pastor Godfrey R. Patterson who joined in fall 2013, is one of the first African American congregations in the Sacramento Valley in the state of California, and until 1946, Bethel A.M.E. Church was the only African American congregation in Yuba County, California. The Church was organized in 1854, in a home located on California Alley, between Sixth and Seventh Streets, and the address was later changed to 113 Fifth Street--Marysville, California. The Reverend D.P. Stokes was the organizing Pastor, and the first Trustees were: G.A. Cantine, D.W. Sands, and Samuel Rinzel. The physical building of the church was built in 1863, next door to the home which became the parsonage, and the deed for the land was made to the Trustees at that time: Mr. J. Watkins; P. Churchill; P. Powers; S.W. Williams; Charles Bush; B. Brooks; and J.C. Cork. During the 1864-1865 A.M.E. Church Annual Conference, held at Bethel A.M.E. Church in San Francisco, California, Bethel A.M.E. church was recognized and received into the A.M.E. Church connection; the congregation consisted of twenty-three (23) members. On July 2, 1921, the church was destroyed by fire along with most of the lower parts of Marysville. The physical structure of the church was rebuilt in the same location of which it stands today at 115 Fifth Street. The early Pastors, from 1857 to 1879, were circuit ministers. Many Pastors followed from 1880 to 1970; and in 1970, Reverend Winn, assisted by the ``Men'' of Bethel, personally remodeled the physical building, and paneled walls in the downstairs kitchen area, as well as remodeled the parsonage. Also, very instrumental in the renovation was the late Waymon Sales, a doer of the Word. Reverend Charles DeWitt followed reverend Winn, and was followed by Rev. Joseph Forbes who initiated and directed many education and community service projects always in the best interest of both, the Church and the Community. Pastors of more recent history are: Reverend E.D. Farris (1978-1980); Norris Williams (1980-1985). Reverend LaGrant Moore, now a Presiding elder in the Southern California Conference of the 5th Episcopal district, served from 1985- 1987; followed by reverend Percy Leaks (1987). In 1987, reverend Willie L. Adams was appointed and served until 1992; under his administration, the physical structure of Bethel A.M.E. Church took on a new look; the old parsonage was demolished, and the sanctuary and pulpit areas were enlarged; the upstairs area was reconstructed into a balcony; This construction was made possible through the hard work of ``Buckley Construction'' and several members of the congregation. Reverend David Reginald Allen, Sr. served from 1992 to 1994; and Reverend David Wayne Coston, Sr. served from 1994 to 1999. In 1999, reverend Dante L. Rome was appointed to Bethel, and served until April 2007; in July 2004, under the leadership of Rev. Rome, an additional 20 feet was added to the north end of the building, along with a beautiful ``stained-glass'' window displaying the A.M.E. Church Denomination's symbol of the ``cross with the Anvil'' depicting the initial pulpit used by our founder, Richard Allen, in a blacksmith shop. Also a baptismal pool was added, and the kitchen and downstairs restrooms were remodeled. Pastor, Reverend Freda Cash was the first female Pastor who was appointed to the Bethel A.M.E. Church at the Fifth District's Mid-Year Conference in April 2007. Under her leadership a new front entrance was constructed in June 2008. Windows forming a cross on two sides of the structure have engraved on each glass block names of members of the congregation, and family members who have been called from ``labor to reward.'' The new entrance way has been dedicated in honor of a faithful servant, Brother Murphy Buckley. Also, under Reverend Cash's administration, an ``evangelism'' team, under the direction of our assistant minister, Rev. Joyce Gardner and Steward, Bro. Paul Lethridge, has been established. Once a month this team reaches out into the community at the Veteran's Park on 5th Street in Marysville, feeding physically and spiritually. And, under the direction of our Evangelist, Terry Hammonds; a homeless ministry that assisted persons in the ``Riverbottom'' with food, clothing, and other items that assist them during the winter months, has been established. Lastly, but not least, from the reactivation of our 7:30 a.m. morning ``Worship and Testimony'' service, the ``Early Morning Disciples Alliance'' (EMDA) has been established. This group of ``early risers'' has assisted the church greatly with community outreach activities that bring churches of different denominations together for worship and fellowship.''

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California (Mr. Royce) has been working at this issue for a very long time, and he has considerable knowledge and certainly a compassion and a deep understanding of these issues. There is far more to this than was explained in your presentation. There is an ongoing debate about how the United States ought to be assisting in the disasters and famines around the world. That debate came to a head last year in which it was decided that we ought to continue with the longstanding appeal for a Food for Peace program, with some modifications. My concern here with this particular amendment is that it may open the door for a continuation of that debate and ultimately lead to the demise of the P.L. 480 program, which has extraordinary political support as a result of the combination of American farmers, the merchant marine industry, as well as many NGOs around the Nation. I recognize that, in many places, it is necessary to have local purchases of food, and the chairman actually cited a couple of those examples. It turned out that the local purchase of food was accomplished through an existing program that USAID presently has, and that program is the international disaster assistance program, where money is available for the local purchase of food. The bottom line is that this $10 million really doesn't add anything that isn't already available in the current appropriation--in the current bill, so I would say let's not go down this road right now. Let's not open up this door to what may very well be a very extensive debate that we have already had, so I would softly oppose the amendment. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee on the other side of the aisle.

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

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California has it right. California is in a severe drought, as well as half a dozen other States, including Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Georgia, Oregon, and Nevada. The intent of this amendment is to signal to the Department of Agriculture to move some money out of the salaries and the support for the Farm Service Agency and over to the Emergency Conservation Program. We know $11 million isn't going to do it, but it is a good start, and it is a signal that we need to send. I know that, in my own district, we normally have over 500,000 acres of rice. This year, it will be 300,000 acres of rice planted. We have tens of thousands of acres of walnuts and almonds. Many of those orchards are going to die, unless there is an opportunity to provide for the emergency conservation programs that will be needed. Those are wells, pumps, and other systems. We ought to do this. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. It moves money from one account to another account and back to the original account. This is a messaging amendment. I ask for your ``aye'' vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I love messaging, and I appreciate the House acquiescing to the previous amendment that is a messaging amendment. Now, let's do something. Let's not just send a message. Let's send $50 million to the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Conservation Program, so that they can carry out an absolutely essential task, which is to assist farmers in States such as California, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, Texas, and Georgia. Those States are all experiencing drought. There will be others as this year progresses. The money can be used immediately to set up water conservation programs. For example, earlier today, a research program that has been administered by the Department of Agriculture that has proven in several States, such as Maryland, Georgia, California, and others, is using modern technology like soil moisture sensing devices, coupled directly with irrigation systems that can be turned on when the plant needs water, not when the irrigator needs water. Those systems can save between 20 and 40 percent of the normal consumption in the agricultural sector. That applies to virtually every kind of plant that might be grown. It certainly applies in my own district with those almond orchards that are now without an adequate supply of water. If this was available to them now--as it could be if we were to pass this amendment and the appropriation bill--those farmers could then access this money, put in place those water conservation technologies, and stretch their supply, allowing them to keep their orchards alive. God forbid that we have another drought. Under the present scenario, thousands of orchards in California will die for lack of water, but if we can save this year and next year 20 to 40 percent of the water that is available, which is possible if we actually enact this legislation and provide the kind of incentive--in this case, 75 percent Federal, 25 percent farmer--we could keep those orchards alive. So I appeal to my colleagues that we allow this to be done. The money comes from the overall account that is within the Department that provides for administrative expenses and salaries. Move it from there over to this conservation account. That money would then be available to farmers to use. We ought to do this. We have other drought legislation that has moved through this House and went to the Senate, but there is no money in those accounts--well, we have the money. The question is: Are we willing to make it available for farmers in any State where there is a drought emergency? I would ask for your ``aye'' vote on this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady from Tennessee spoke about the American taxpayer and the money that is being spent by Congress, and I would like to pick up on that subject because I am deeply concerned about where and how we spend our taxpayer money. It is not our money. It is the American public's money, and it ought to be spent wisely, and it ought to be spent on American-made goods and services. This amendment would build off of the current law dating back to 1933, the Buy American laws. This amendment is necessary, and I will tell you why it is necessary. This is a picture of the new San Francisco Bay Bridge, built by the Chinese Government--several billion dollars of American taxpayer money, California bridge tolls, and Federal taxpayer dollars spent to buy steel products to build this bridge from the Chinese Government. It was a steel company in Shanghai, owned by the Chinese Government--actually, by the Chinese military--that built this bridge. This bridge should have been built by Americans--American steel companies, American workers. It should not have been built by the Chinese Government. Three thousand jobs in Shanghai, zero jobs in America--and a very shoddy job done on the bridge, thousands upon thousands of faulty welds, over budget, and it went over on time. We need to strengthen the Buy American laws. We need to bring it home. We need to Make It In America, and this amendment would strengthen the Buy American laws in the transportation portion of this bill. It would simply say that 60 percent is good. 70, 80, 90, and 100 percent is where we ought to be. We ought not any longer contract out to foreign companies and specifically not to the Chinese Government to build American bridges. We are going to spend $50 billion in this bill. Is that money going to be spent here in America on American-made goods and services? Or is it going to be spent somewhere overseas, perhaps China? No more, I say. Build it in America. Use American taxpayer dollars to buy American goods and services. This ought to be the mantra of this Congress: Buy America. Employ Americans. Give American companies here in the United States the opportunity to bid on these jobs. It is not going to be more expensive, and this is the proof, way over budget, way beyond the timeframes, and way beyond what is reasonable. Build it in America, American jobs, spend American taxpayer money on American-made equipment, goods, and services. That is what this amendment does. It also eliminates one of the problems that led to the segmentation, but we will not go there. We will simply say it is going to be made in America. That is what this amendment is all about. I know we are going to get a point of order, but really, we ought to waive that point of order and put on the floor the issue: Is this House willing to Make It In America, to bring the American jobs back home? Is this House willing to allow American taxpayer money to be spent on American-made goods and services? Or are we simply going to do a point of order and avoid the fundamental question that was raised by my colleague in her previous discussion, how are we to spend the American taxpayer money? I say spend it on American-made goods and services. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we could use the rules of this House to promote policies that are beneficial to the American Government, beneficial to the American taxpayer, and, most importantly, beneficial to the American workers, whether they are employed in the steel industry or the construction industry, or we could use the rules of the House to deny American workers the opportunity for jobs. We are spending $50 billion in this legislation, and we ought not use the rules of this House to deny American workers, to deny American companies the opportunity to use the American taxpayer dollars to build America. The rules of this House are flexible. They can be used to benefit America and American workers or they can be used to the detriment. The question the Chair has before it is, How will we use those rules? Will we, in this House, strengthen the American economy by requiring that the American taxpayer dollars be used here in America? Or will we use the rule in the opposite way, to the harm of American workers? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, you rule in favor of American workers and override the request.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I don't think we will take a full hour here, but there are a couple of things that we need to talk about. I always like to start these hour sessions with why we are here; what are the values that we want to put forth. Why do we spend these hours in the Chamber? What is our job here? I often find myself going back to FDR. He said back in the thirties something that has always been with me. He said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' The test of our progress: Do we provide more to those who have much, or to those who have too little? How can we meet this test? What can we do? Today is one of those days that I guess comes from ``A Tale of Two Cities''; the best of times and the worst of times. I am going to put up this photo of a levee break in California. I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River Valley and probably have over 1,100 miles of levees. Today, actually is the best of times. The levees are not breaking. Actually, we are in the middle of a drought. But today, at the White House, the President signed the Water Resources and Reform Development Act, an extremely important piece of legislation for my district, and for America, because this legislation provides for the protection of our cities. It provides for the flood control programs that are absolutely essential in my part of California and all across America. So, Mr. President, thank you very much for signing that legislation. And for the Members of this House and for the Senate that decided that it was time to put aside all the partisanship and to do something right for the people of America, we actually made progress today and the Water Resources Reform and Development Act is now the law of the land. For California, Hamilton City will see their levees, after 15 years of effort, they will see their levees under construction in the coming year. And God willing, there won't be a flood this winter. And also an end to the drought, thank you. Natomas, the city of Sacramento, major levee improvements there, and along Yuba City, along the Feather River, 40 miles of levee improvements now underway, and also over in Marysville. We are thankful that there was bipartisanship and that there was a major piece of legislation. We have to provide the funding, but the authorization is there. So this photo of a levee break in California, we can put it aside and we can then talk about this. This takes us back to FDR. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act not only deals with levees and floods, it also deals with the ports. It deals with the inland waterways. It deals with the locks and all that comes with the transportation in the sector of water transportation, whether it is on the east coast ports, the ports in California, Long Beach, Los Angeles and in my area, Stockton and Sacramento ports. We are talking about 13 million jobs, and these are the good, middle class jobs that Americans need. They want to go to work. They want a job. They want to be able to support their families. They want to be able to have a home. They want to be able to have that vacation. With the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, now law, signed today by the President, we will see 13 million jobs in the future. They are not going to happen tomorrow, but they will over the next 5 years, as this bill--over the next 2 years as this bill goes into effect. So FDR's challenge to us: What have we done for those who do not have enough? Today, the signing of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act provides for those who do not have jobs the opportunity. For those who are in harm's way in floods, it provides for them to have those levees built over the next several years. For those who have abundance, well, maybe their home is behind the levee also, or maybe they also will benefit from the improvement of our ports and waterways. So that is the good news. So what happened today on the bad news side? Well, let's talk about that. This is a picture of an Amtrak train that has been built in Sacramento, California. This train was paid for by the stimulus bill, which some in this House think was a failure, but the 600 employees in Sacramento at the Siemens manufacturing plant there, they don't think it was a failure: $800 million in the stimulus bill 5 years ago to provide for 100 percent American-made locomotives. This is the most modern locomotive in the United States. It will soon be running on the Northeast corridor between Washington, D.C., and Boston, made in America, made in Sacramento by Americans, 100 percent American-made. So why am I talking about something that happened in this House 5 years ago with the stimulus bill, the American Recovery Act? Why am I bringing it up tonight? Because today, the House of Representatives passed an appropriation bill for transportation and housing, a woefully inadequate piece of legislation that actually will reduce funding for public transportation. Amtrak may not be able to use this train, may not be able to use the locomotive that was built specifically for the Northeast corridor because our Republican colleagues reduced the funding for Amtrak and actually passed legislation to further restrict public transportation, Amtrak and public transportation, in our cities all over this Nation. Why would they do that when we know, when everybody knows that transportation is absolutely critical, that public transportation, whether it be Amtrak or a light-rail system or a rapid transit system in any of our cities, is absolutely essential for those people who have little ability to travel to their jobs? Whether it is on a bus, light rail or a train, they need to have that public transportation. So what did our colleagues do? They reduced the money for public transportation all across this Nation, whether it is Amtrak or your local light rail or your local bus system. Why? Why, when we know that we also have to deal with climate change? And how can you deal with climate change when you do not fund the public transportation systems of this Nation? It makes no sense. In fact, it is nonsense. You want to put people to work? You put people to work in building the infrastructure of this Nation, whether it is a train, an Amtrak locomotive, or a levee, or a port, you put people to work building the transportation systems. We know that we also have a major funding bill that is necessary. We have to reauthorize the transportation programs. The MAP-21 expires this year. We know that this summer the highway trust fund runs out of money. So where was that money in the transportation bill? It wasn't there. Reductions. So who is going to build? Who is going to repair our bridges? Are we going to be able to do that? Probably not, not with the money that was not appropriated today for the transportation programs. But the President has proposed a major reauthorization of the transportation programs. It is called GROW AMERICA. It expands our highway fund some $302 billion over the next 5 years, an expansion so that we can repair our bridges. We know across America, some 25 to 30 percent of the bridges in every district that the 435 of us represent, every single one of us have a bridge that is subject to collapse. In my district, I probably have more than 200 bridges that are in desperate need of repair for the protection of the individuals and communities that use those bridges, as well as the commerce that is dependent upon them. But, no. We don't have a transportation bill on our side. We need to take the President's bill, we need to embrace it because it is fully paid for. It has not only the money that is currently available from the various programs that currently fund it--these are the excise taxes on fuel, whether it is gasoline or diesel, but it adds to that another very large sum of money by corporate tax reform. Those corporations that have been able to skip out of their responsibility here in the United States to pay for the programs that all of us depend upon, they would have to pay their fair share in a corporate tax reform. That money would then flow into the transportation programs, providing the money that we need to build our transportation system, whether it is the light-rail systems, the heavy rail, Amtrak systems, or the roads and the bridges of this Nation. It is a good bill. It deserves our full support. We can tweak it. We can make little changes here and there, but unless we take up the challenge of transportation funding in this Nation, unless we are willing to work with the President and his proposal--we have no other proposal before us in this House of Representatives. Let us embrace the President's proposal, make the changes that we think are necessary, but let us move forward. Let us make America move forward with a transportation program for this millennium, not for the last one, but for this one, one that provides all the benefits that we need. I want to bring up another part of the transportation program--and once again, it is about jobs. The economist in this case, Mark Zandi, has done an economic analysis of the transportation programs and the infrastructure investment. By the way, this guy worked for John McCain in the McCain Presidential campaign. His analysis is, for every $1 we invest in infrastructure, $1.57 is pumped into the American economy, so you are getting that multiplier effect. You are putting men and women to work, not just the hardhats, not just with the pick and shovels working on the roads and bridges, but also in the offices, the engineers, the architects, the economists, and all those who are doing the work in the back office. So for every $1 that we invest--and let's think about it. The President's proposal is $302 billion over the next 5 years. Multiply it out. An extra $1.57 for every dollar invested. So let us take Mr. Zandi's analysis. Let us apply it. So we probably have somewhere over $450 billion of actual economic growth, if we were to follow what the President has proposed in his GROW AMERICA transportation program. Has anybody got a better idea around here? I don't see much happening, but we know by midsummer, the transportation programs in America face a highway cliff. The Federal highway trust fund runs out of money--no new contracts. Some 700,000 people are likely to be laid off in the ensuing year, unless the House of Representatives and the Senate takes up the challenge of funding the transportation programs of this Nation. It is ports. It is highways. It is bridges. It is the bus systems. It is the Amtrak system. It is the rail systems of America. All of these are part of the President's proposal, and it is something we ought to take up and we ought to move forward with. What we have been talking about here in these hour-long sessions over the last 3 years is another piece of this puzzle. When we do infrastructure--whether it be the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, the levees and the ports, and the inland waterways, the locks, the channels, all of those critical parts of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, as we do that and the transportation bill, we need to think about how to increase the multiplier that Mr. Zandi talked about. He talked about, for every $1 we invest, you get $1.57 growth in the economy. However, he did not take into account another critical aspect of this. This is our Make It In America agenda. If we take that $302 billion Presidential program and we take the piece of it that he has suggested--that we take the Buy America law that has been in effect in the United States since 1933--and we expand that from the current 60 percent content; that is, for every dollar spent in the transportation programs, we would go to 100 percent of that money being spent on American-made steel, concrete, iron, and American-made products of all kinds, so that when we build a bridge, it is American steel, and it is made in America. The Make It In America agenda says: let us spend our tax money on American-made equipment, on American steel, by United States companies operating in the United States, that the men and women of America get to benefit from the tax money that they have contributed to our transportation programs. This is the Make It In America agenda. It is using our tax money to employ Americans, American steelworkers, American bridgebuilders, American contractors. I wanted to give you an example of what happens when you do not use the Make It In America agenda, when you ignore the 1933 law that says, at a minimum, 60 percent of the content in our transportation programs must be spent on American-made steel, American-made equipment. Here is what happens. This is a picture of the new San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge. It opened less than 7 months ago. It is a marvelous piece of architecture. It is quite a bridge. It has beauty, and it is extraordinarily expensive. This is a single-suspension bridge, so it is suspended on both sides, an architectural marvel. However, all of the steel here in this 500-foot tower and the steel on the roadway was not produced in the United States. It was made in China by a Chinese Government-owned steel mill that was actually expanded and built on the backs of the American taxpayer--$1 billion spent of American taxpayer money, directly sent to China, to the Chinese Government-owned steel mill. By the way, there were significant delays, and there were cost overruns because the Chinese steel manufacturer did a shoddy, crumby job of producing the parts of this bridge. All of the welding was done in China by Chinese welders that were, by all accounts and by audits done by Caltrans, ill-trained, ill-prepared, and had done thousands upon thousands of very inadequate welds, so that when this incredible bridge arrived by boat from China, the welds were inadequate. There were cracks. In fact, much of the welding was done in the rain in Shanghai. When you do welding in the rain, you are going to get a very bad result. So there were thousands of problems, all of which led to a delay, and all of which led to additional expense, a prime example of what happens when you do not follow the law. The law said 60 percent content in the United States. However, the Schwarzenegger administration in California figured out a way to circumvent the law. They took this bridge, a multibillion- dollar bridge, and they broke it into 20 different pieces, so that they could avoid the Buy America law--the result: made in China, 3,000 jobs, shoddy work, additional expense, and additional delays. The President's proposal, the GROW AMERICA proposal that he has given to this Congress to consider and which we ought to consider, would say that, in this case, if you are going to use American taxpayer money to build a bridge, then it will, over the next 5 years, ramp up from 60 percent American content to 100 percent American content. Let's do it. Let's Make It In America. Let's employ Americans, and let's tell the Chinese: you build your own bridges in China, but by golly, in America, it is going to be built by American steel and American workers. That is what the President is proposing for us. That is what we ought to be doing, and we ought to be embracing the notion that we cannot do it on the cheap, as this Congress did attempt to do less than an hour ago with the passage of the Transportation-Housing appropriation bill, totally inadequate money to deal with our fundamental transportation programs, to say nothing of the housing programs that are desperately needed for the low- and moderate-income people of America. If you care about the American workers, if you care about the ability of this economy to prosper, then we must embrace an aggressive, fully- funded, robust transportation program. We must fund the Water Resources Reform and Development Act that the President signed today, and we are grateful for his signature. I am personally grateful that communities in my district will be able to have protection from floods in the future, as a result of that law. However, the question will come to us: Are we willing to put up the money to build those projects? Today, we have a prime example of the unwillingness of my colleagues on the Republican side to fund the transportation program that this Nation desperately needs. The infrastructure of this Nation is the foundation upon which the economy will grow. These are the issues of the Make It In America. Tax policy, the President addresses that in the GROW AMERICA. He says that American corporations cannot duck their responsibility to this Nation. He has proposed tax reforms for corporations to pay their fair share--no more running away, no more getting a tax break for sending jobs overseas, but, rather, pay your fair share, and build America. We will come to energy policy another day. His proposal also calls for the job force preparation, so that we are training those men and women who are going to be our future engineers to build the bridges of the future, so that we will have the men and women that know how to do the welding--apparently, the Chinese could use that kind of training also--so that we would have the job training programs that at every level--the back office accountants, the engineers, the architects, the men and women that are operating the heavy equipment, and those that are doing the welding on these projects, that is part of the proposal that the President has put forward, and that is part of the GROW AMERICA proposal. So the labor and the education come together. Down here, infrastructure. This is the Make It In America agenda. Tomorrow, my Democratic colleagues and I will be talking with our leader, Steny Hoyer, about how we can take an additional package of bills and advance the Make It In America, the GROW AMERICA proposals. We would hope our colleagues here on the floor of the House of Representatives would embrace a bipartisan effort to really build our infrastructure, to take what success we had in the water resources and reform and take that success to the transportation issues that confront this Nation. There is much more that we must do. As we do these things, we will also address a fundamental problem that faces this Nation, which is climate change. This is real. I studied this in the 1990s, when I was Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior, as we prepared the American agenda for the Kyoto climate conference. Unfortunately, the treaty that came back from that conference was never adopted by the Senate in the 1990s. So to this day, we have yet to address this issue, and we must. This is an issue that will cause flooding across this Nation. It will cause sea levels to rise, which we are already seeing, and it will lead to more severe storms, which we are already seeing. How can we do that? Again, back to the transportation bill, back to the water resources bill. Put together the levees that we need to protect ourselves, and put together the transportation systems that allow for increased public transportation, whether it is on a locomotive built by that German company in America, in Sacramento, which is the most modern locomotive in the United States, made in America 100 percent. Maybe it is a streetcar or a fast rail system or a bus, again, financed by Americans, built by Americans with a Buy America proposal, our taxpayer money used to employ Americans as we build high-speed trains, as we build new locomotives, hybrid buses, or whatever. That public transportation will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases, and if we eliminate the congestion that is caused by our inadequate highway system, we also will reduce greenhouse gases, all of which is good for climate change. There is much more to be said. But now for more than 3 years, I have stood on this floor and brought to this floor and to the attention of this Nation the Make It In America agenda, which is part of the transportation system as well as part of our highways and ports system. So we are going to continue with this. The plea I have to my colleagues--435 of them, Democrats and Republicans--is that we learn from our success. The Water Resources and Reform Development Act was a success--a bipartisan success. It lays the foundation for the protection that we need from floods, as well as growing our economy on the rivers, locks, and the ports of America. It was a good one. We thank the President for his signature today. Step one. Step two comes to us over the next 3 months as we face the highway cliff where we know that if we fail to enact a new highway bill, we will see 700,000 Americans unemployed, losing their jobs over the next year. We have to get this job done. The President has laid out a good proposal. We can tweak it, we can make changes to it, but we must take it up, and we must move forward with the transportation program. And when we do, no more--no more bridges made in China, only bridges made in America, American taxpayer money spent in America for American steel and American workers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.