John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought for a moment you were going to go into more detail about your own personal emotions as you stop in every one of these towns on your way to see your fiancee, but we'll let that go for another time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Castro, thank you so very, very much. Often, in fact, I've talked about infrastructure in a physical way, that is, the physical features of roads and water systems. But your discussion of infrastructure being the infrastructure of opportunity, which does include those things, it also includes this one, which is education, a critical element in the process of education. If we are going to build infrastructure of opportunity, this is where opportunity starts for virtually everybody in this country: the opportunity to get a good education. Part of that is the physical building itself. Obviously, it is the teachers, the way in which the subjects are taught, and access, access to not only K through 12, but also higher education. This is one of the things that when we talk about physical infrastructure, we need to talk about the classroom itself, about the facility, air-conditioning, as well as the communication systems, computers and other kinds of communication systems. So the infrastructure of opportunity, what a wonderful theme, what a wonderful way of describing America and this discussion we've heard before we came on the floor about immigration. You could not be more correct.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We will continue to work on this, and we will talk about it again in the future. California is the most populous State. I didn't say ``popular,'' although I would certainly say that. Texas being the second biggest in geography. We now have our new Representative from Texas joining us, Mr. Castro. Thank you so very, very much. Texas likes to talk about all the good things they are doing. One good thing they did was to send you here. So, Mr. Castro, please join us and talk to us about Texas and infrastructure.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Delaney, thank you very, very much. Obviously, Maryland is very well represented with some innovative thinking from their Representatives. Infrastructure banks are not new. This is a new way of financing it, and a very exciting one. Thank you so very much for joining us this evening.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, I like that already.

Mr. GARAMENDI. California being the most populous State----

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think you did. I was trying to grasp the totality of it. It is a process in which now this is a piece of legislation; it's here in the House. I would hope that our colleagues on the Republican side that control the passage of legislation, even the taking up of legislation in committee, would look at this and go, oh, you mean we can actually build $200 million or $2 trillion of infrastructure over a 50-year period without any appropriation, with no taxpayer dollars, other than some amount that's foregone in the repatriation. Very interesting, a very, very exciting proposal; and I would hope we take it up. I am sure that there will be questions about, well, who gets the money, who decides which projects are going to be selected.

Mr. GARAMENDI. That's this thing called taxes, number 2 up here.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I understated it. Two trillion dollars sitting offshore.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Delaney, that is a fascinating way of bringing capital to this program. California has numerous high-technology companies, Apple and many, many others. All of them come to us, representatives from California, and they complain about the repatriation. They'd like to bring those earnings from overseas back to the United States. They've got maybe $1 trillion sitting out there, if I recall the number. Maybe that's about--I don't know. Whatever the number is, a lot of dollars. They want to bring it back, but they don't want to pay the 35 percent corporate tax. So you're suggesting that they could bring that back in a way that they wouldn't face that tax, but the money that came back would be--at least a portion of it would be used to finance this infrastructure bank. Have I got this pretty much correct here?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this evening jobs, putting Americans back to work, building our foundation for economic growth. For many, many days now, in fact, for more than 2 years, the Democrats in the House have been discussing a project which we call Make It In America. These are strategies that we're putting forth to develop more jobs in America, to rebuild our manufacturing industry, and to bring wealth back to the United States. I would love to comment on the issues that I've heard earlier with just my colleagues on immigration, but I'll let that go. I would just say one thing. The last comment that was made about the earned income tax credit, I would remind my colleagues that that was a Ronald Reagan program. Take that for what you might. Back to Make It In America. These are the basic issues. We talk about trade policy, fair trade policy, not giving away our opportunities; tax policy, to encourage manufacturing and jobs here in United States; energy policy, how we're going to renew our energy system, become energy independent, the role of clean fuels, the role of renewable fuels and gas; the labor market, education. Perhaps the most important of all of these is a well-educated workforce. If we have that, many of these other issues would fall into place--the role of research in creating tomorrow's economy, tomorrow's businesses, the things that need to be made in the future. But tonight we want to talk about, not the least on this, it just happens to be the lowest on this list, and that is infrastructure. It's one of those critical investments. It's the foundation upon which the economy grows or not. If we have a solid infrastructure--transportation systems, water systems, sanitation systems, communication systems, research facilities, educational facilities, that's all part of the infrastructure. Some of it is private; much of it is public investment. But this is one of the fundamental investments, along with these other issues here, that our economy has traditionally made over the years. And unfortunately, in the current situation, we seem to be falling off the power curve that created the foundation for the American economy upon which to grow. So today, we're going to really focus on this infrastructure issue, not a new issue. Actually, George Washington, I think he was our first President, told his Cabinet Secretary, Treasury Secretary, to develop a plan to grow the economy, called, A Plan for Manufactures. Alexander Hamilton came back to Washington with a plan. One of the many points that he raised and suggestions that Alexander Hamilton made was to create infrastructure. He said the Federal Government ought to build canals, ports, and roads, fundamental infrastructure upon which the American economy would grow. And those things were done right back at the very beginning of this country. So from the very earliest days, the Federal Government has been involved in building infrastructure. Now, tonight, joining me are two of my colleagues, Mr. Delaney from the great State of Maryland and Mr. Castro from Texas. They're going to talk about infrastructure. And I'd like now to turn to Mr. Delaney, who has a proposal that, actually, the President of the United States suggested in his American Jobs Act program, a program that he put forth more than a year ago that the Republican Congress has done nothing with. So Mr. Delaney has picked up one of the suggestions that the President made, made it whole, and has presented legislation on an infrastructure bank. Mr. Delaney, please join us and tell us about how the infrastructure bank would work and what it would do for America.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I want to commend the staff, the Chair, the ranking member, and all of those who have worked so hard over the last couple of days to get this bill processed and to deal with all the amendments. It's been an arduous task and one that has created, I am told, far more amendments than have ever been presented on any such appropriation bill in the past. And there's a reason for that. The reason is that this appropriation bill is a direct result of the, what we fondly call--or not so fondly call--the Ryan Republican budget. This is really the first opportunity that America has to see the effects of a very austere budget, one that really decimates programs all across America, programs that are of great value and great utility. This particular subcommittee was presented with the mark, that is, the amount of money that it had available to it as a result of that budget that was passed by the majority in this House. Now, that budget's not law. There has been no conference committee. In fact, the majority in this House has refused to set up a conference committee, that is, to put in names for that conference committee. So this is really a one-House budget that is being carried out here with this legislation. It is a remarkable and an extraordinarily important moment in which the American public has a chance to see exactly what austerity, as presented to us by the majority, means. It means that those research programs that allow America the opportunity to advance its energy programs, to take control of the energy programs of the future, the renewable energy programs, the nuclear energy programs, and on and on, those opportunities are lost. I know the committee was faced with a very stringent budget, an austerity budget. They made decisions that are, in my view, extraordinarily detrimental to America. Specifically, the committee-- the majority, that is--made a decision to take the money that was available and remove it from those programs that are the energy future of this Nation--wind, solar, conservation, biofuels, automobiles that are efficient, houses that are efficient, programs that are absolutely crucial to this Nation's future and to the world's future because they deal specifically with climate change--and move money from those programs to the Nuclear Weapons program and to programs that are not needed. Consider for a moment that the United States has over 5,500 nuclear bombs, which are sufficient to end life on this planet. It's over if those were to be used. And the military says we don't need them. These are programs that are inefficient, ineffective, and are the sinkholes of American taxpayers' money. The majority decided to move the money there. Okay. Who are we going to use those things on? We can't. We don't need them for deterrence. But yet that's where the money goes. Not only does the money come from those energy programs that we absolutely need for our future and for our economy's future, the money comes from programs that are absolutely essential for the well-being of Americans today and tomorrow. The Army Corps of Engineers protects our citizens with its levees and with its flood control projects. We've heard this over and over again for the last 2 days. And yet the majority continues to insist to spend the money on these nuclear weapons, not on those things that are essential for today's life and essential for the well-being of people now, as the storm season arrives here on the east coast with hurricanes, in the Gulf States with hurricanes, and in my State of California, in my district, where I have more than 1,500 miles of levees. People are at risk. This amendment would take $100 million from these weapons systems and put that money directly into the Army Corps of Engineers Construction account so that the Army Corps of Engineers can protect our citizens today. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think the gentleman who is proposing the amendment is missing some major points. Before a wind energy project can continue or go into effect, it has to meet very stringent environmental requirements. Those environmental requirements, among other things, deal specifically with all types of birds. I will tell you that, in my current district and in my previous district, I had the major wind farms in California, and no project was allowed to go forward without addressing these issues. Under the Endangered Species Act, it is possible for incidental takes to take place if there is appropriate mitigation, and I know from the projects in my area that there had to be appropriate mitigation. The modern wind turbines are far different than the old wind turbines, which were, in fact, deadly to birds. The modern wind turbines are far less so. And if there is an incidental take of a listed species, it can only occur with proper and appropriate mitigation. The author's reference to the issue of a longtime take opportunity only occurs if there happens to be an adaptive management program in place that allows the Fish and Wildlife Service and other appropriate agencies to review the process and progress, or lack thereof, and apply different measures or stop the projects at that time. So I would oppose the amendment. I think it is based upon incorrect facts. And I join the chairman in opposition. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I appreciate the respect. You and the chairman have made a very good argument for my amendment, and I thank you for that. My amendment doesn't do anything that you're not already trying to do. It simply gives some more specific direction to the Department, specifically to seek outside analysis of the alternatives that might be available. Clearly, the Department has not been successful in running this project, and they are not in the process of seeking outside help. They're going to try to do it inside. I think that would be a mistake. There are people out there--there are companies and there are actually researchers outside--who could provide that outside view of what's going on. Secondly, there are other ways of dealing with this problem. This is an aqueous process that's being used there, and it simply isn't working. There are other ways of disposing of the plutonium and of the highly enriched uranium that are proven to work--I discussed this earlier this day--and we need to study whether that can be used at this facility. We're not talking about jobs. We are actually talking about making this facility work and possibly using a different technology, but we really need to have somebody outside take a look at this whole thing. Both you and the ranking member and the chair have adequately explained why my language should be adopted. I thank you for the committee's looking at this thing in a very hard, structured way. It has to be dealt with.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the committee has done a considerable amount of work on one of the very expensive facilities we have in the nuclear arena. This is the MOX facility in South Carolina. In the current report language, the committee deals with the problem that this facility has. It's over budget, isn't going anywhere, will ultimately produce a product that nobody wants. So what I'm trying to do with this amendment is to take this thing one step further in order to try to find a solution to this very, very expensive problem. If I might just quote the committee's report here: Despite the influx of additional funding, the NNSA has been unable to recover its schedule and is now facing another $2.8 billion in additional costs. Instead of its fulfilling its responsibility to address these rising costs through reforming its management of the project and conducting an independent cost estimate to quantify these cost increases, the NNSA wrote ``TBD''--which I suspect means ``to be determined''--in its budget justification and removed all project funding from its 5-year plan while it carries out a strategic pause. This program is in deep trouble, and it is a hole into which the U.S. taxpayers continue to pour money. I am pleased that the committee is taking steps, but I'd like the bill to take an additional step, and that's what this amendment does. Let me explain what it is all about. Technically, the bill takes $1 million from the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and reinserts the same amount into that account. This is done in order to avoid a point of order. The legislative intent of the amendment is therefore to remove the $1 million from the funding from the MOX facility at the Savannah River site and then direct the NNSA to instead use these funds for: One, an independent report to analyze the potential cost-effective alternatives for plutonium disposition, including a detailed assessment of technologically feasible costs; and, two, a study examining whether there are other potential uses for the facilities already built and for the Savannah River site more generally. While not legally binding, the Agency should comply with this legislative intent if this amendment is adopted. The amendment is consistent with an amendment that I offered earlier with regard to the NDAA, and the language would be similar. I would urge the adoption of this. We really need to try to figure out the very best way to deal with this sinkhole of taxpayer money. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment together with Mr. Polis. We've heard discussion repeatedly about the value of science. But if we back up a few moments, we also need to understand our values as Representatives of this Nation. There's been an interesting subset of debates here over the last several hours and, on the one hand, it's the issue of, we must maintain our nuclear weapon superiority, and the committee has taken up that value, that goal, and has put a lot of money into that area while moving money out of the science. Unfortunately, the committee couldn't take a larger view of the overall budget and the appropriations and deal with, perhaps, the fact that we're spending $82 billion in Afghanistan this year and maybe move some of that money over into these accounts. But that wasn't possible. But if you stand back and take a look at what has happened throughout the course of this day, you'll see that there have been repeated efforts on the part of the Democrats to rebuild the science, the research budget of the United States. This appropriation bill simply decimates that budget, that critical investment in today and tomorrow, and in the economy of the future. Our ability to deal with climate change, our ability to deal with energy, are just stripped, gutted and actually set aside as a result of this appropriation bill. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a $2 billion reduction, 73 percent, ARPA-E, the subject of this amendment, a $329 million reduction, an 87 percent reduction. The Office of Science, 25,000 researchers across this Nation are likely to be laid off, thousands of research projects will simply not be funded. They will simply die on the vine. The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, an $80 million reduction. It goes on and on. This is so backward, this is so backward. What this Nation needs to do is to build its research capabilities, build its science. We do not need to build more bombs. But yet, that's what we are doing here. This amendment replaces the $329 million dollar cut to the ARPA-E program, a program that has actually created many new opportunities, which my colleagues will be discussing here in the next few moments, but a program based upon the Defense Department's DARPA program, that has, through arguments that we've heard over the last several hours, developed extraordinary technology that has now found its way into the world's economy, for example, the Internet. We really must restore this money, and we must restore the science budget and research budget for the Department of Energy. We can't fail. If it's a choice between building more nuclear weapons and replacing our nuclear weapons or creating tomorrow's economy, it's a simple choice. But this bill doesn't do that. It deals with yesterday. Yes, we're going to need nuclear weapons, but not 5,500 of them. We don't need to rebuild all of them. We don't need to spend $7.7 billion on that enterprise while gutting the research and the science future of this Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nevada is on to a very, very important issue here: What are we going to do with spent nuclear fuel? Our current light water reactors consume maybe 3 percent of the energy in the nuclear fuel. You can reprocess it once and you get another 3 percent, and so now you've got 93, 92 percent, or 94 percent, of the energy that you now consider as waste, in this case to be permanently stored at Yucca Mountain. We actually have a 20th century solution. We spent some $10- to $12 billion on it in the '60s, '70s, '80s, and in 1993 we put that solution aside. We need to bring that solution back into place, and the gentleman's amendment would further us in dealing with this issue of spent nuclear fuel. It is not a waste; it is an extraordinary asset, and it's one that we should be utilizing. In doing so, we can dispose of it through multiple recyclings, all of which has been proved by the United States, readily available today. We need to take it out of the closet, put it back on the front burner, and use the accelerator technologies in our reactors to adequately dispose of these very dangerous wastes. In doing so, we can not only dispose of the total longevity, we can take it from a couple of hundred thousand years down to a couple of hundred years of dangerous radioactive emissions. We need to move on this. The gentleman's amendment allows us to do that. It solves a major problem that the entire world has. Spent nuclear fuel is an international problem. The United States Government in the 1960s recognized this as a problem, set out to solve it, did solve it with what is known as the integral fast reactor--integral fast reactor. That is the accelerator reactor integral in that the reprocessing is a metallurgic process, not an aqueous process that can only be used once. This can be used multiple times, and in so doing eliminate much of the problem that we have with spent nuclear fuels. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this very, very important amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for raising opposition to the amendment. I'm glad he gave me a few moments, Madam Chair, to slow down a bit before I would comment on the amendment. The author of the amendment would probably want to take a few steps more. To carry out the full intent of what he's proposing would be to eliminate all subsidies for everything. Then where would we be? I suppose if we're going to be consistent in this, if we were to adopt this amendment, we ought to go to the oil and gas industry and eliminate all of the subsidies that they have, which are tax breaks, direct subsidies, by reducing their taxes to the tune of well over $10 billion a year. Probably not a bad idea. And then to go on, as the chairman of the committee has suggested, to take on all of the other subsidies. Where would we be? It's a long history of America, dating back, really, to the Founding Fathers, in which Alexander Hamilton presented to the Congress, at the request of George Washington, a plan on manufacturers in which was stated a policy then and carried forward ever since that time, some 230-plus years, in which the Federal Government has been directly involved in the development of the American industries. For example, at that time, Alexander Hamilton suggested that the Federal Government ought to support the development of roads, ports, and canals, and, in fact, one not far from here received that assistance, the Potomac Canal. And ports were built, eventually lighthouses were put up, all of them to benefit commerce. Abraham Lincoln subsidized, with the consent of Congress and the Senate, the Transcontinental Railroad that has helped the gentleman's State of California, and my State of California. There's a long, long history of America in which the Federal Government has directly, indirectly, subsidized the creation of industry. We went to the Moon, but we created enormous numbers of businesses as a direct result. And in the gentleman's pocket is an iPhone or some other device that was directly subsidized by the Federal Government. Now, if you want to go back and simply forget about progress, then carry out this amendment to its fullest extent. I don't think any of us want to go there. I'd ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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