John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you very much. You are quite correct that we need to move in that direction. The American economy is about 60-70 percent based upon consumer purchases of homes and cars and all those other goods. Part of that reason that we're not seeing the kind of economic growth that would normally occur in a recovery is the 99 percent don't have money. They lost a great deal of their wealth. Trillions of dollars of their wealth was wiped out in the financial collapse, their pensions, their homes and equity in their home. As the economy has recovered, the creation of the growth, the wealth, didn't go to them so they have not been able to really increase their purchasing power, which has dampened the economy. Now, there are things that we can do. You were beginning that process. Let's go through them. I'm going to put this back up because this is not just a picture of the distribution of wealth in the economy, that is, the economic growth; it is also a picture of why the economy hasn't really returned. There are other factors, to be sure, but clearly the absence of purchasing power, that is, new wealth in the hands of the 99 percent, the absence of that has retarded the economic recovery. This is something we have talked about here many, many times, and Mr. Tonko brought this up, many of these issues. We call it the Make It In America agenda. This follows along on President Obama's jobs program. Many of these elements are the same as he proposed. They are displayed a little differently here. Tax policy; critically important. We need to redo our tax policy. Mr. Tonko talked about the tax policy and the effect that we've seen over these many years. But what I would like to do today is focus on these others issues, the issue of infrastructure, research, education, labor, and energy. On the labor side, we have talked about that a great deal here. The working men and women, laboring as they are, are they getting a fair share of the economic growth? The answer is categorically, no. Are there policies that can change that? Yes. One of them has been of discussion here in Congress, which is the minimum wage issue. California has a minimum wage law that is before the Governor. He is expected to sign it, and that will push the minimum wage up to about I think $10 an hour, and that will cause the entire wage structure in California to move upward, shifting wealth to the working men and women in California. Whether the Nation will follow that, the President has called for an increase in the minimum wage, and that will certainly be helpful in shifting to the working population of this Nation a larger share, or at least a fair share of the growth of the economy. Let's talk about infrastructure for awhile. I know this is an issue you were working on, Mr. Tonko, following the floods of a year ago. We see those same floods--different floods, but devastating floods, occurring in Colorado. You were one of the strong advocates for rebuilding our infrastructure. Why don't you pick that issue up, and let's talk about how we might be able to accomplish that.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I join you in those condolences. Our subject matter for the evening was really going to be about the economy, about income within this Nation, or the lack of it. I want to just start by referring to a statement that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made during the economic crisis of the 1930s. In fact, this statement is etched in the marble at the F.D.R. memorial here in Washington, D.C. 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. Well, what has been our progress over these last several years? This last week, the economic study of the progress of America since the great crash of 2007 was made public. There has been progress. There has been economic growth. There has been the creation of wealth. We have seen progress, but it's not the kind of progress that F.D.R. talked about in the thirties. What we have seen is exactly the opposite of what he called for: to provide more for those who have little. Here it is, the tale of two Americans, a stunted recovery, but, nonetheless, a recovery. Where did the economic growth go? Where did the wealth go that was created? Was it to those who have little? No. No. No. Ninety-five percent of all of the wealth that this economy created since 2007 in the great crash went to the top 1 percent. Ninety-five percent of all of the wealth went to the top 1 percent. The remaining 99 percent wound up with 5 percent of the wealth that the Nation's biggest economy created since the crash of 2007. Franklin Delano Roosevelt would not have stood for it, and he didn't. Nor did Bill Clinton. From 1993 to 2000, the economy grew very rapidly. The distribution of the wealth that was created during those years went in a remarkably different way than what has happened over the last 5 years. During the Clinton period, 55 percent of all the wealth that this Nation created went to the bottom 99 percent. The top 1 percent did very well. They got 45 percent of all of the wealth. You can say that was not enough for the bottom 99 percent, and I would agree; but compared to what's happened over these last 5 years, it's a remarkable improvement on the distribution of wealth. What is the distribution of wealth? It's not a class struggle. It's about the men and women of this Nation that work hard, that get up every day, go to their jobs, as did those 12 people who were killed yesterday here at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. They got up. They went to their job. They worked hard for themselves, for their families, and for this Nation. So men and women all across this Nation are doing what we want them to do: participating in this society, following the American Dream. They work hard, play by the rules, get on the economic ladder and climb. Here's what happened to them: not much. Something is desperately wrong here in America that the result of 5 years of labor by the 99 percent, that they would find their reward to be 5 percent of the wealth that was created. We need to address this, and tonight our subject matter is how we can do that. Before we go to that, I want to put up one more chart and then ask my colleague to join in. What does it really mean down home? What does it mean out there in the subdivision or in the tenements? What does it mean in America when 95 percent of all of the wealth created winds up in the hands of 1 percent? Here's what it means: It means that there's hunger in America; It means that mothers and fathers are not able to have a job that they can provide their children with a meal, with food on the table; It means that in this House of Representatives there will be this day, this week, an effort to provide even more hunger in America, more children going without food as the supplemental food program is slashed by $40 billion. That's $4 billion a year for 10 years, $40 billion, so that the 1 percent can have even more. This is not right. It is not right in this Nation that we have hunger. It is not America as it should be, and it certainly is not the way Franklin Delano Roosevelt said America should be when the test of our progress is not whether we add more abundance to those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. We have a challenge here in America. We need to change things. We need to change the public policies that would deny food to hungry children, to parents, to our seniors, to our children in schools. It's time for us to put in place policies that create a real economic growth, real growth that the working men and women of this Nation can share in the economic progress of our Nation, and tonight we're going to spend some time talking about how we can do that. My friend from New York, Paul Tonko.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, earlier in the session today, we paused in remembrance of those who were killed here in Washington, D.C., yesterday, yet another tragedy for this Nation, another shooting, senseless rage by some individual. We heard on the floor here a few minutes ago a plea by some of our colleagues to call us to action so that we who represent the millions upon millions of Americans would find within ourselves the courage to take action on wise gun safety legislation, mental health, and other things that we know can help to address the problem that plagues this Nation. So today, as we start this one-hour, I want to just remind ourselves that we have work to do here. Joining me tonight is Paul Tonko, a Representative from the State of New York. We often have had the opportunity to speak on the floor about the issues that confront us. Perhaps, Paul, you may want to comment on this tragedy, and then we'll turn to the other issues that we want to take up today.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sergeant Joel R. Orr as he retires after nearly 25 years of law enforcement service to the City of Fairfield. Hired as a Public Safety Officer with the Fairfield Police Department on July 25, 1988, and served the community in various capacities that included Patrol, Investigations, and School Resource Officer. Sergeant Orr also took on ancillary assignments by joining the Crisis Negotiation Team and being selected for the first Street Criminal Apprehension Team (SCAT). In the course of teaching important skills such as Parent Project, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) and driver awareness, he earned the City Manager's Commendation Award for outstanding leadership in developing and implementing the City's Driver Training Program. Sergeant Orr also assisted California's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) with their Entry-Level Patrol Officer Job Analysis Project and then completed the distinctive Robert Presly's Institute of Criminal Investigation (ICI) certification course with a specialty in homicide investigation. On December 5, 2003, Sergeant Orr was promoted to Police Corporal and then on August 18, 2006, he was promoted to Police Sergeant where he served in Patrol, Investigations and Professional Standards, and as a Public Information Officer. In 2008 and 2010, as the Police Department experienced changes in leadership and command staff, Sergeant Orr consistently stepped in and assisted City management in filling the gaps. Over the last five years, he has assumed the Police Lieutenant's position twice and managed Patrol Operations. Sergeant Orr has a can-do attitude and he consistently provided quality service to the community. Sergeant Orr has been a valued employee and leader and his commitment to the community was evidenced on a daily basis. He was a loyal representative of the law enforcement community and admired for his hard work, dedication, and positive work ethic.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. He most certainly is wrong in this case. There is no doubt about it.

Mr. GARAMENDI. How many times have I heard from this side that the President is wrong? The President is wrong in this case.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARAMENDI. I find it difficult that our esteemed Appropriations Committee, which watches the taxpayers' money with such ardor and intensity, would increase by 51 percent the amount of support that the American taxpayers are giving to the Afghan National Security Forces-- the police, which are among--no, excuse me--they are the most corrupt-- and the army, which is questionable, and certainly the government, which we know to be the most corrupt in the world--that it would simply write $2.6 billion more money than we were giving them last year, for a total of $7.6 billion, for something--something--unspecified. We would never do this for our own military. Never would we do that. We would have them lay out how they were going to spend the money before we would even consider giving them the money, and then we would hold them to tight account. I cannot understand why we would do this. There is no justification other than, oh, we're leaving, and we've got to help them, so throw some more money at them. They already have been appropriated $52 billion, and only $40 billion of that has been spent. There is $12 billion left in the account, and you're going to add $7.6 billion to that. What are you doing? What justification is there for this other than, oh, they may need it because we're leaving? They're going to use it for--let's see--other things--well, maybe for some field hospitals, maybe for some airplanes, maybe for some supplies--maybe, maybe, maybe--but there is nothing written. There is nothing written. Oh, yes. We know the American Army or the American military will somehow spend it wisely. There is a 10-year record of its being spent unwisely. $2.6 billion. What could we do with it? Could we reduce the deficit? Could we build some levees? Could we educate some kids? Could we do some research in the United States? Come on. Of all of the things we're doing here today, this is the most disgusting. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I request to know how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, we've had a lot of discussion here in the last several minutes about Afghanistan. This amendment follows along the same line, but it's actually far greater in dollars. Last year, we appropriated $5.1 billion to the Afghanistan National Army for their support. In this year's budget, an additional $2.6 billion was added for--who knows what? It was $2.6 billion of American taxpayer money for something--airplanes? supplies? support equipment? trucks? It was unspecified, unknown, to be used by one of the most corrupt governments--no, excuse me--the most corrupt government in the world. $2.6 billion of American taxpayer money for something, unspecified, to be used somewhere, somehow--I suspect, more likely, in some bank account in Bahrain. What are we doing? What justification is there for $2.6 billion of additional expenditure for the Afghan National Army? Have we lost our minds? No. We're just going to lose our money. What is going on here? What are we doing? What is this all about? This money should never be spent for some unspecified purpose. We take our Department of Defense, and we hold them to a very tight account. We don't let them spend money without a contract, without reviews by the inspector general, without reviews by our committee, but here is $2.6 billion, unspecified. Oh, Mr. Karzai, use it wisely. Come on. Come on. Let's not do this. This amendment would simply say, You can't have that money. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, if you don't trust the Afghan Government, you should never give them $2.6 billion. This is on top of the $5 billion that they were to receive. This money was specifically added to the budget for the Afghan military to buy something--parts, airplanes. We have absolutely no idea what they're going to do with this money. We would never, under any circumstance, give our own military a $2.6 billion blank check, but that's exactly what we're doing here. You're asking for fraud and abuse. We should bring this money back and make sure our own people are doing the work that the Defense Department needs.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I have great respect for my colleagues on the subcommittee. However, the argument that has been made is incomplete. We're talking about whether we're going to spend an additional sum of money this next year on a program that, A, has large questions about whether it works; and, B, the military doesn't need the money right now. If the gentlemen remember the committee hearing, Mr. Chairman, the general said he didn't need more money now. He had sufficient money from this year's appropriations for next year carrying on the studies that are necessary as to where to locate the site. It may not be on the east coast; it may be elsewhere.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman and my good friends who serve on these committees with me, this is not about the President and this is not about missile defense. This is about the unnecessary expenditure of a very important national asset--our money. Testimony given in committee indicates that we may or may not need an east coast missile defense site. And we also know that the current missiles that are being used for these anti-ballistic missiles don't work. At least there's a failure, and there's been repeated failures just in the boost system, let alone if we can hit Iraq with a rock. So the problem here is this money should not be spent now for this site. It is absolutely clear: the Department of Defense from last year's budget and appropriation has sufficient money to determine where to locate a site. With regard to the cancellation of the missile that was discussed a few minutes ago, it doesn't fit in the existing sites, and so they canceled it because it doesn't fit in the hole in the ground. So what are we doing here? This is $70 million, not a vast amount of money when considering the appropriation for the Department of Defense, but that's $70 million that could be used to--well, how about protecting a levee of some city in the United States? It could be used to much better effect. There was another amendment that I understand that failed that took another $100 million or so out of this particular thing. We ought to be taking what money's available and putting it into something that actually might work, which would be directed energy. But an amendment for directed energy was refused an opportunity to be heard on the floor. So we really ought to be thinking seriously about how we move forward with this. I have great respect for my colleagues, but we ought not just throw money after other money.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I do have one more thing that I really must do before I close down, and that is talk about geothermal energy and one of the communities I represent, Lake County. We have a critical natural resource opportunity in this Nation, and it's beneath the soil, beneath the ground. It happens to be the heat of the Earth. It finds its way to the surface in many places around the world, and it certainly does in my district in Lake County. That heat comes from the geothermal, and it is an extraordinary natural resource and it is clean energy. It's one of the most abundant natural resources that can be found anywhere, and it's often overlooked. It has the ability to become one of the key future sources of energy. We'll talk about it much more next week. But I do want to talk about its use here in the United States. It is environmentally friendly. Dry steam and flash geothermal plants emit just 5 percent of the carbon dioxide and less than 1 percent of the nitrous oxide of traditional fossil fuel coal-powered plants. The binary geothermal installation emissions are near zero. More importantly, geothermal energy is cost effective. Over the last two decades, the cost of generating geothermal power has decreased by 25 percent. Additionally, geothermal can be produced domestically. In California, the Imperial Valley, the Lake County area, are two of the most used geothermal resources. Nevada has enormous resources, and there are many other places within the United States. And it can be sent--the same resource is available in many parts of the world. So we as a world and certainly as a State and Nation ought to be moving more aggressively to harness our geothermal resources. It's also a good jobs place, creating more than $117 million in annual wealth in the geothermal region of Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake Counties. It's also a tax source. Lake County and Samoa County receive over $11 million in annual tax revenues directly from the geyser's geothermal field. And Lake County has saved millions of dollars in the disposal cost by funneling 8 million gallons of wastewater back into the ground for the harnessing of geothermal resources. So I draw the attention tonight of the Nation to the potential of geothermal and the success that it's had in my district in Lake County and in my neighboring county of Sonoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think there's more than one Castro. There's only one Garamendi around. So probably JCastro.house.gov. That's the Web site, and they can get in touch that way and keep informed. So I welcome people. If anybody out there is watching this discussion about infrastructure, how it can be financed, why it's important, what it means for economic development, education, what it means for social justice and opportunity--if you like the theme, the infrastructure of opportunity, you can contact me and I'll pass it on to Mr. Castro, or you can go directly to JCastro@house.gov or Facebook.com/RepGaramendi, RepCastro. I want to thank you, Mr. Castro and Mr. Delaney, for joining me this evening. Next week we'll take up one of the other issues that we have. We'll probably talk next week about energy and how we can improve the energy situation to meet the climate change. Geothermal Energy

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think it's about time for us to wrap up, but I want to engage the public. I don't know how many people are watching C-SPAN this evening. I would like to think there are some 300 million, but I suspect that's overstating it a ways. I would ask the public to comment to you and me about their infrastructure in their communities. What do they need in their communities? How do they think it could be financed? As to Mr. Delaney's proposal for an infrastructure bank based upon the repatriation of foreign earnings, does that make sense? Does it make sense to do what the President said, which is to appropriate $50 billion right now to build infrastructure? There are many different alternatives. But I'd love to hear from the public, and here's how they can do it. I'm going to use yours down here too. Stay in touch, stay informed, stay connected. You can go to Facebook.com/RepGaramendi or RepCastro. Either way, RepGaramendi, RepCastro. Twitter: Twitter.com/RepGaramendi or RepCastro. Or you can go to our Web site, Garamendi.house.gov.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Also, without adequate levees, you clearly slow down economic development. Now, not every city has a flood problem; although, certainly, in the great Midwest, you see this in all of the cities along the Missouri and the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. So, in that entire huge basin, which is more than 60 percent of the United States, there are serious flood issues. This extends--and certainly we see it on the east coast--to Superstorm Sandy, and you mentioned Katrina. All across this Nation the issue of flood protection is critical. In my own district, Sacramento, there is a portion of Sacramento that, I think, is now rated as the most dangerous city in the United States. It is the Natomas area of Sacramento. With the rebuilding of the levees in New Orleans, I think now Natomas, Sacramento, is rated as the most dangerous. We are talking about a flood situation that could occur, because the levees are substandard, in which the river would break. We have floods in the winter, so the water temperatures are in the 45- to 50-degree temperatures. If that were to break, the inundation would be immediate, and it would be 20 feet. The survival time is measured in minutes, not in hours. When that water hits you, you get hypothermia and you're dead. So it is an extreme problem. We need to rebuild those levees. The community is taxing itself to a fare-thee-well to do it, but the Federal Government is backing away from its previous commitment. The rest of the story is that the economic development potential in that community is stifled. It's not just housing. It's all kinds of economic development, as the Sacramento International Airport is in that area. With the lack of money to build the levees, human life is at risk-- several tens of thousands of people--and economic development. So these things come together--infrastructure being the foundation upon which the economy grows and, in some cases, certainly in the case of levees, upon which people's lives depend.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Indeed. There is much to be said. I'm just going to share with you, and perhaps you have a similar situation from your own experience. This weekend, I was back in my district in northern California, in Yuba City and Marysville. Now, the Feather River, which is one of the major rivers--tributaries--of the Sacramento River, goes right between these two towns, with Marysville on the east side and Yuba City on the west side. This is one of the most dangerous places in America. The Feather River and the Yuba River, which come together at that place, have a long history of deadly floods. What the citizens need there is the help of the Federal Government to complete the levee and enhance the levees around their communities. We had a major debate here on the floor last week with the Energy and Water bill in which the Ryan budget--that is the Republican budget--was seen in its fullness for the first time. What that budget called for was a diminution--in fact, a very, very significant cut--in the infrastructure investment for the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers builds the levees, the locks and other major public works. Sequestration took $250 million of construction out of the Army Corps of Engineers, and right now construction projects that were scheduled are not taking place. In addition to that, the proposed budget in the actual appropriation bill even further reduced the money available to the Army Corps of Engineers to build the levees to protect communities all across the United States. At the very same time, money was shifted from the Corps of Engineers--from the levees and the things that are necessary to protect American citizens and others who are here from devastating floods--to build more nuclear weapons. What in the world is that all about? We've got 5,500 nuclear weapons now. The money was shifted. They all worked, and there is no way we would ever use all of them unless you want to end life on the Earth. Yet that was a priority issue--nuclear weapons versus levees to protect Americans. It is the wrong priority, but it is a fundamental example of the infrastructure needs and the wrongheaded priorities that sometimes find their way into legislation. Unfortunately, that bill passed. That is the statement of the House of Representatives. Now, every Democrat voted against it, but it did pass the House. That now will go over to the Senate, and the Senate, I am sure, will never set that priority the same as this; but in a conference committee, we are now looking at a tug-of-war between nuclear weapons and levees to protect Americans. Hopefully, the levees will win. We'll see. That's one example. When I went home this weekend, people asked me, ``What was that all about?'' I said, ``That was about bad priorities and an austerity budget working together.''

Mr. GARAMENDI. And a very sound investment was made in you and your brother, who I believe is the mayor of San Antonio.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Castro, you put that so very well. It's a critical investment that the American public makes in the next generation so that this economy can move forward. There is also--we've been debating this on the floor--a bill that passed out of here that would set the student loan interest rate as a variable rate, much like a home mortgage variable rate. Watch out, as we know what happened with the variable rates that went on. It was interesting that that particular bill would actually create income, a large amount of income if I remember the numbers--some $30 billion over the next 10 years of income. So it was like wait a minute. Are we really just doing this to get the money back or are we looking at this as a profit center? I think it was a serious mistake, first, to do a variable interest rate. That would move it up, quite possibly, to more than what the doubling of the 3.4 percent would be to, maybe, 8, 9 percent, 10 percent. Bad idea--and it's looking at the problem incorrectly. The way to look at it is just as you said. This is a way for the American public to make an investment in a student at a low-interest cost to the student but sufficient to repay the Federal Government, not as a profit center but as a repayment. There are some administrative costs to be sure. That's how we ought to look at this because it is a crucial investment, the most important investment of all--the educational investment.

Mr. GARAMENDI. There are so many different things that we could talk about in this process. This is a piece of legislation that, actually, I've introduced for the last couple of years. This particular piece of legislation, H.R. 1524, says, if it's your tax money--the American taxpayers' money--then it ought to be used to purchase American-made equipment. That's exactly what happened with the earlier stimulus bill in the manufacturing of these locomotives in California, but there are some 200 different suppliers all around the Nation who are supplying that. We can really boost the economy in the transportation system but also in the energy system--solar, wind. All of those are subsidized, as is oil and coal, with American taxpayer money, either with a tax credit or a subsidy or a direct payment, and if we said, Okay, but you must produce that product in America--as with the wind turbines, make them in America, as well as similarly with solar panels and other kinds of equipment. So these are all things that fit into this. The theme that you hit on early on, I think, is so very, very important, and that is the infrastructure of opportunity. I really like that. I think that, as we go about our business here of passing laws or not, we ought to keep in mind that our task is to create that opportunity.

Mr. GARAMENDI. From the city and region of San Antonio.

Mr. GARAMENDI. There's much to learn about that. But, again, if you go back to our Make It In America agenda, these issues, the labor market and education, fit into that infrastructure of opportunity. I've always said that if you're going to build an economy and have social justice, there are five things you must always do: First, you must have the best education system in the world that's available to everybody so that they can climb that ladder, as you were saying earlier, that they have that opportunity; Second, that you have a great research system, and we do. Actually, we have 10 campuses of the University of California. Some of the State universities are now picking up some of the research agenda also. But anyway, the research; And then you need to make things coming out of that. That's the manufacturing. And that may be a computer program, or it could be an automobile. But you need to be making things, adding, creating value; The infrastructure being the fourth; And the fifth being you've got to be willing to change. You can't do what you did yesterday; you need to deal with things of tomorrow. There are many other pieces to this. We talked a little bit about education here and the way it works. This was a statistic that was given earlier. Mr. Delaney went through this very quickly. But for every dollar you invest in the physical infrastructure, you are going to get back immediately about $1.57 as that money churns through the economy as the concrete is purchased, as it is put in place, men and women are doing that work, and then that churns back through the economy, actually giving great stimulation to the economy. Not our words. These are Mark Zandi's words, the chief economist of Moody's Analytics. This is a very, very well-known thing. So if we want to really move the economy, we can take Mr. Delaney's idea about an infrastructure bank, not an appropriation, invest and put people to work and give a boost to the economy; and in doing so, you also create better tax flow into the government. The other thing, and this is something that I know Texas is working on, as is California, and that's rail transportation. If I recall correctly, Fort Worth is the headquarters of BNSF Railway. This is just a picture of a new Amtrak train that was manufactured in Sacramento. Part of the infrastructure investment that is now being made here in the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston, this new train is 100 percent American-made. Back in the stimulus bill, about 80-some trains were proposed to be purchased, about a half a billion dollars, and they wrote into it ``must be American-made.'' So Siemens, a German company, came to Sacramento where they had a light rail shop, decided they could build a heavy-duty locomotive and make it 100 percent American-made. So this one is now being tested--the first model out--and there will be some 80 of these on the Northeast corridor, increasing the speed, the movement, the transportation system. For all of America, rail transportation--light rail, heavy rail, and even high-speed rail--are ways in which we move our physical transportation, and if we cause those products to be made in America, we also increase our manufacturing base. Again, it's part of the American program of making it in America by using infrastructure.