John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I'm joined tonight by two of my colleagues, Mr. Tonko from New York and Mr. Altmire from Pennsylvania. We're going to be talking about the President's budget and about one of the issues that we think really will propel America back to the leading edge of the world's economies. We've had some tough times, but we've seen some progress. If we can once again make it in America, we're going to see this economy grow, we're going to see the middle class come back to life. We're going to see an expansion of wealth and the opportunity for families to make it in America when we make things in America. Let me just start off this discussion with the progress that's been made. Some of our colleagues here would like to say that nothing good has happened over the last 3 years when, in fact, this chart, which is from the Department of Labor Statistics office, points out very, very clearly where we have come from since the Great Recession began. If you take a look at this, the gold columns over on the far left--or far right, depending on your perspective--you can see the great decline that took place from 2007 until January and February of 2009, when President Obama came into office. Since that time, we've seen a steady improvement in the number of jobs in America. So even though we were seeing here in this particular 2009 period a continued decline, each week that went by we saw improvements, less of a falloff, and we began to emerge from the depths of the Great Recession. So beginning here in about 2010, we began to turn around and we began to see positive job growth. Every month since that time we have seen positive job growth in America--not enough, not enough to satisfy any of us on the Democratic side and not enough, I'm sure, on the Republican side, and certainly, as President Obama said when he appeared here at the State of the Union, not enough to satisfy the President. So we're now looking at the President's budget going forward, proposed, came to the Congress yesterday. That budget lays out how he would like America to move forward, and how we in the House of Representatives and the Senate can put into place the laws, the programs, and the money to pay for the advancement of the American economy. So we're going to spend tonight building off the President's budget and the things that are in there. Over the last year, my colleagues and I have been talking about the key ladders to success, those things that create opportunity in America. And certainly, they're education, it's the research, it's the manufacturing, the infrastructure, and the opportunities that come with them. Tonight we'd like to start by focusing on one part of the President's budget, which was the R&D, the research and development portion of the President's budget. Now, in any economy, if you're going to grow that economy, you have to stay in the forefront of technologies. America has been the best in the world at this. And in doing so, we have created extraordinary growth in the economy and opportunities for new businesses. Unfortunately, in the last 20 years, we've seen those businesses go offshore. But the genesis of that growth is often in the research and development, usually funded by the Federal Government. And that research and development comes in several different parts of the Federal budgets. Certainly, we see it in health care, the National Institutes of Health. We see it in the national science, in the Energy Department, and in the military. Each of those organizations has a research budget, and from that budget comes new innovation, new products. For example, the defense research agency, known around here as DARPA, really did the grunt work, the initial development and research to create the Internet. And we've certainly seen what that has meant to America. Now, with that introduction, $148 billion in the President's budget for all the research and development that the Federal Government supports gives us the opportunity to create the new solutions to today's health problems, today's economic problems, energy issues and defense issues. Fortunately, my two colleagues today are well-steeped and very, very knowledgeable about the research budget. My colleague from New York ran a research program in New York. Share with us, and then if you'll reflect on the President's budget.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Altmire, and thank you for the work that you've done for us in western Pennsylvania. Indeed, at one time, I know, when I was growing up, it was the center of the American steel industry and manufacturing there, and to the immediate west in Ohio and Indiana and on. I want to put up this chart because it really demonstrates the challenge that we face and the opportunity that we have. This chart speaks of the 12 years with 6 million American manufacturing jobs lost. Let's go back about 20, 25 years ago. There were just under 20 million manufacturing jobs in America. Over the years, it was up and down, with a slight decrease. Then beginning around the year 2000, we began to see a precipitous decline, basically the outsourcing of American jobs. The great manufacturing heart and heartbeat of America just began to slow down to a rhythm where now we are down to just over 11 million manufacturing jobs. This is our work. This right here. This decline is the challenge that this House faces. When you start with what the President has suggested, you start with R&D, because that's the genesis. That's where the new ideas and the new products are developed. Then you have to couple that with manufacturing. I want to give just two examples from my own district, one that I learned last weekend when I was back home in the Sacramento Valley just west of Sacramento. A university town, the University of California, Davis, about 10 years ago, some graduate students at the engineering campus or the engineering school there at the University of California, Davis figured out a new program, a new way to do advanced manufacturing. They were into machine tools, and they figured out a way to take machine tools and make them far more productive and innovative and capable of doing some really different things. They took that idea--these were the entrepreneurs that you talked about, Mr. Tonko. They took that idea and they started a small business. In the intervening years, they began to grow. They now employ 75 people in the Sacramento region for the development of these advanced machine tools. A company in Japan took a look at this and said, Oh, we want to do that. They were in this business. So they bought the company, and they thought about taking the company back to Japan. No. Didn't happen. Instead, they decided to build that manufacturing facility in Davis, California. That factory is now being constructed, and it will soon employ a hundred people. So here we have an example of where research out of the University of California, Davis engineering school led to the creation of a new business in the machine tool industry and the continuation of research and development and advancement and, now, manufacturing taking place in California. There are a couple of other pieces of public policy that fit into this continuum of development of economic growth, and they were policies that were put forth by the House of Representatives when the Democrats controlled the House. It was this: For any company that wanted to make a capital investment, they could immediately write off that total investment in the first year. Rather than depreciating that investment over 7, 10, 15 years, they were able to take advantage of it. A very, very powerful incentive to make it in America, to build your manufacturing facility in America. So this company, DTL, is now growing in California as a result of the research at the university, coming out, entrepreneurs taking the ideas, building a business, and now investments, in this case by a foreign company, into the United States. We call that insourcing. I'll come up to the other example a little later. Mr. Tonko, take it from there.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you so very much, and thank you for your extraordinary experience in dealing with research and then translating that research into real things that Americans could make. Now, the great manufacturing center of America is represented here by my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire). Thank you for joining us, and share with us your thoughts as we look at the President's budget and on making it in America.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to speak about the Afghanistan war. I commend President Obama's administration for the steps it has taken to bring the longest war in our Nation's history to a close. Last week, Defense Secretary Panetta said that by mid- or the latter part of 2013 we'll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advice, and assistance role. I urge the administration to fulfill this aspiration and bring our troops home to their families. They have sacrificed enough. The Afghanistan war began as a war of necessity. After the horrific September 11 attacks, we sent our troops to eliminate al Qaeda and their leaders and destroy their training camps to prevent a future terrorist attack. Our troops carried out this mission with extraordinary courage and dedication. Osama bin Laden was driven out of Afghanistan, and he is now dead. Furthermore, the intelligence community affirms that al Qaeda is virtually extinguished from Afghanistan; yet the war continues. End this war now and focus like a laser on terrorists wherever they may be. Our troops in Afghanistan are no longer fighting terrorists who pose a threat to the United States. They are now fighting domestic Afghanistan factions and defending a corrupt and inept Afghanistan Government. Our servicemembers are dying in another country's civil war. This has become a war of choice. I recently met with Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis, who described to me what a civil war looks like on the ground. He has served two combat deployments in Afghanistan and has traveled throughout the country talking to U.S. troops stationed all over. A recent evaluation of Colonel Davis reads: ``His maturity, tenacity and judgment can be counted on in even the hardest situations, and his devotion to mission accomplishment is unmatched by his peers.'' Now, this is what Colonel Davis has described as to what he has observed: ``What I saw bore no resemblance to the rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground. Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving. Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level. ``I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, base. I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I walked with said the people didn't want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government. From time to time, I observed Afghan security forces collude with the insurgency.'' Colonel Davis' candid testimony reinforced my own conviction that there is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, only the prospect of continued shedding of American blood in a war that is not ours to fight. Only through negotiated political settlement amongst the Afghan factions, not through an open-ended U.S. military presence, could Afghanistan become a stable and developing country. America faces new threats now. More than $1 trillion spent on two wars over the course of a decade undermines our financial stability and takes away much-needed funds for American jobs and investments at home. The Obama administration has shown courageous leadership in eliminating Osama bin Laden. They have also shown leadership in bringing the war in Iraq to an end and in planning to ensure that the U.S. military commitment in Afghanistan is not an open-ended one. As President Obama clearly stated in his speech on the drawdown plan last year, we need to focus on nation-building at home. I agree. I strongly support ending U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan and bringing our troops home by mid-2013, if not sooner. It's us, the 435 Members of this body, the United States Congress, that can choose when this war ends.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I commend President Obama's administration for the steps it is taking to bring the longest war in our nation's history to a close. Last week, Defense Secretary Panetta expressed the hope that ``by mid- to the latter part of 2013 we'll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advice and assist role.'' I urge the administration to fulfill this aspiration and bring our troops home to their families. They have sacrificed enough. Afghanistan began as a war of necessity. After the horrific September 11th attacks, we sent troops to eliminate Al Qaeda, killing their leaders and destroying their training camps to prevent a future terrorist attack. Our troops carried out this mission with extraordinary courage and dedication. Osama Bin Laden was driven out of Afghanistan and he is now dead. Furthermore, our intelligence community affirms that Al Qaeda is virtually extinguished from Afghanistan, yet the war continues. End this war now and focus like a laser on terrorists whereever they may be. Our troops in Afghanistan are no longer fighting terrorists who pose a threat to the United States. They are now fighting domestic Afghan factions and defending a corrupt and inept Afghan government. Our servicemembers are dying in another country's civil war. This has become a war of choice. I recently met with Lt. Col. Danny Davis who described to me what that civil war looks like on the ground. He has served two combat deployments in Afghanistan, and has traveled throughout the country talking with US troops stationed all over. A recent evaluation of Col. Davis reads: ``His maturity, tenacity and judgment can be counted on in even the hardest of situations, and his devotion to mission accomplishment is unmatched by his peers.'' This is how Col. Davis describes what he has observed: What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground. Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving . . . Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level. I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base. I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn't want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government. From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency. . . Col. Davis's candid testimony reinforced my conviction that there is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, only the prospect of continued shedding of American blood in a war that is not ours to fight. Only through a negotiated political settlement amongst the Afghan factions, not through an open-ended U.S. military presence, could Afghanistan become a stable, developing country. America faces new threats now. The more than a trillion dollars spent on two wars over the course of a decade undermines our financial stability and takes away from much needed funds for American jobs and investments at home. The Obama administration has shown courageous leadership in eliminating Osama Bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda leaders. They have also shown leadership in bringing the war in Iraq to an end and in planning to ensure that the U.S. military commitment in Afghanistan is not an open-ended one. As President Obama clearly stated in his speech on the drawdown plan last year, we need to focus on nation-building at home. I agree, and I strongly support ending U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan and bringing our troops home by mid-2013, if not sooner. It is the people in this body, the United States Congress, that can choose when this war ends.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would hope that they don't want to eliminate the regulations that we put in place to bring Wall Street under control. But regulations are a small part of the overall problem. There is a large number of other issues, some of which we've talked about today, others of which we will bring up as we discuss, for example, infrastructure, which will be our next piece. But those regulations that are in place today are there for the protection of key parts of the American economy--worker safety, the pollution regulations so that our streams and rivers are not polluted, our air is not polluted, so there's not mercury and other carcinogens in the air, and regulations dealing with the way in which business operates. Now, they can be modified; but be very, very careful if that is your only solution to the demise of the manufacturing sector, because it is but a small part of the overall issue. We've discussed many of the other parts here today. We ought to be, all of us, Democrat and Republican, alike in dealing with the twin problems: the trade deficit, and the extraordinary and disastrous loss of manufacturing jobs. This is where the American middle class lost it when the American manufacturing sector declined. We can rebuild it with wise public policies. Wise public policies are what we ought to be doing, rebuilding the American manufacturing sector and reigniting the American Dream as we do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. I really hadn't noticed, but they almost parallel. One is right on top of the other. You can put that blue line, and it copies the red line that is the growth in the American trade deficit. I want to just deal with this China thing quickly. We only have another 7 minutes here before we yield the floor. A year ago, this House, with both Republican and Democrat support, passed the China currency legislation that would require the Department of Commerce to put a countervailing tariff on imported Chinese goods if that currency manipulation were to continue. It went over to the Senate. It did not pass the Senate. This year--I should say, this session, in 2011, the Senate passed a similar bill that would impose a countervailing tariff on Chinese goods as long as China maintained its currency manipulation. It came over to the House nearly 7 months ago. The Speaker and the Republicans have refused to take up that bill--the very same bill that a previous year we voted on bipartisan. This is an important piece of legislation because it would deal with two issues: the loss of American manufacturing jobs and the extraordinary trade deficit, that is, the export of American money to China. It is the policy behind many of the problems in the manufacturing sector, and it is policy changes that we have the power to put in place to reignite the American manufacturing sector, to rebuild it, and, simultaneously, put in place the ladders of success--education, research, entrepreneurship, support of the small businesses--all of those things that actually do reignite the American Dream. Mr. Tonko, why don't you take the last 2 minutes and then we can wrap up.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, that American Dream is going to be held back by unfair trade policies that are seriously harming the American economy. Early on, I put this up. I don't know that you were here at the time. This is the American trade deficit. Much of this deficit is a deficit in trade with China. A lot of that deficit is caused by Chinese currency manipulation. The Chinese currency is undervalued somewhere around 20 to 25, maybe 27, percent, which gives their manufacturing sector a 20, 25 percent advantage because of the currency manipulation.

Mr. GARAMENDI. There are so many pieces to this puzzle. You've talked about the research; you've talked about the support of new businesses, particularly in the clean energy sector. As we discuss those things, I keep thinking about what is happening, I think very unfortunately, in this debate. It's a political year, and we've got our elections. We have the election of the President and the Senate, all of those things are up, and so we take issues, and we may take a specific problem and drive that problem to the point of destroying other good programs that are under way. This is happening right now. The Solyndra case, three times on the floor today I heard the word Solyndra come up. This was a problem, this was a company that was supported by a loan guarantee, and it failed. It largely failed because of China's policy of dumping--dumping on to the American market underpriced solar cells. That's why the company failed. Now we have the opportunity to deal with this; but before I get to how we can deal with that China problem, I want to just ask my Republican colleagues to be very, very careful as they drive this political issue because they may succeed in making this a big political issue for this country; but by doing so, they may cause America to turn its attention away from renewable energy--the very issue you raised, Mr. Tonko. We have to have energy security, and renewable energy of all kinds is going to be part of that. So we must be very careful. Whatever political advantage there may be to the Solyndra case, be aware, America, that underlying this is an extremely important policy in the United States to achieve energy independence, to free ourselves from the slavery of the oil barons and dictators around the world so that we can have a secure energy system in the United States. It will, by necessity, involve renewable energy. Solyndra is a problem. Make it into a political problem, okay, but don't turn Americans' view and hopes away from the renewable, clean energy sector. It is vital, and we have to have policies in place to support that, just as we have supported the oil industry for more than a century. Put that same support behind the batteries that you talked about, Mr. Tonko; put that same support behind the bio-fuel industry; put that same support behind the solar, wind, and also the smart grid. Right now, in my district, Lawrence Livermore Labs is looking at developing a research program on how to integrate these renewable and variable energy systems into the grid so that they all mesh and provide the energy that is needed by America as it changes hour by hour across the United States--a very, very important research project. All of these things come back to government policy and support. So we must be very careful about that. I do want to take up the China currency issue and the dumping of, in this case, solar cells on the American market. Would you like to start that discussion, Mr. Tonko?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, why do we keep coming back to the 21st Congressional District?

Mr. GARAMENDI. The reigniting of the American Dream is going to depend upon, once again, those small businesses out there, the entrepreneurs who are willing to take the risks, willing to take their concept and their idea and put it into a business. Along the way, the history of America, as you well described it with the Erie Canal, we can look at all of the other great industrial advances that have been made. There has always been a partnership between the government and the individual companies and the entrepreneurs that are out there. For example, the oil industry has enjoyed for more than a century over $13 billion a year of tax subsidies to encourage the production of oil. And there is an incredibly successful partnership between the government, not only with tax subsidies but making the public lands available for the exploration and the extraction of oil over the last 100 years, creating the wealthiest industry in the world. Now once an industry has matured, as has the oil industry, we should remove those subsidies and use those subsidies for the new industries that we need. We've been discussing since Carter and the first oil embargo the need for American energy security. Most people now believe that American energy security is going to be based upon the continuation of the oil industry and the coal industry at some level, using the natural gas that we now find is more plentiful than we once thought as a bridge, let the oil and the coal industries wane while we build the renewable industry. So if we took those tax subsidies that the oil and coal industry have enjoyed for a century, shifted them to the new industries, we could then see a blossoming of the green industries. In California today, the solar and wind and biofuel industries employ some 320,000 people. It is a growing sector of the American policy. The policies that emanate from Washington, D.C., can either help or hinder that growth. That growth is not only new jobs here in the United States, but it's also energy independence. The sun shines on the United States. Well, not at night, but it does shine during the day in most parts of the United States. So solar. The wind blows--and I'm not just talking about the wind in this Chamber, but across the Nation. Now, we have to couple that with public policies, and I want to speak to one specific policy, and that is shifting the subsidies that the oil industry has had for a century, shifting those subsidies over to the renewable side of it. Here again on the renewable side, this bill, H.R. 487, I happen to be the author, I'm kind of pleased with this piece of legislation. This bill would require that the subsidies be used to buy American-made solar and wind and other renewable energy equipment. We should never use our tax dollars to buy a solar panel made in China. We should never use our tax dollars to buy a wind turbine manufactured in Germany. If somebody wants to go out and buy a solar panel using their own money, buy whatever you want. But if it's our tax dollars, buy American. Use our tax dollars to buy American-made equipment. Use that to reignite the American Dream, to build those machines, those solar panels, in the United States. Use our tax money to buy American-made equipment, whether it's a bus, a train, a plane, or a solar panel or a wind turbine. These are public policies that emanate from this House. We can change what's going on in the American manufacturing sector.

Mr. GARAMENDI. The Internet came directly from DARPA. DARPA is a defense research agency.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, that reigniting of the American Dream will be dependent upon two factors, that is, the public, the small businesses, the entrepreneurs putting together their businesses. And at the same time, it's going to be dependent upon public policies. You mentioned education. For the last 2 years, the Democrats have been proposing and pushing a series of pieces of legislation to enhance the ability of Americans to go to school. The Workforce Investment Board, very, very important. I suspect that that was one of the programs that your plastics company took advantage of in retraining. Our Republican friends last year, in the budget and in the appropriations, tried to reduce the workforce investment, but we wouldn't have that, and we've been able to at least maintain it. We were able, on the Democratic side, to increase the Pell Grants so that kids can go to college. Now, I would hope they would go to college to be chemical engineers, process engineers, and not financial engineers, which I discussed early on. But I think that if we can just continue to support the educational system, including such things as vocational education--we used to do vocational education in America. We let it go. And as it went, we saw more and more dropouts. So supporting the educational system. You mentioned--and I think we need to drive this point home tonight-- the research side of it. This is something, Mr. Tonko, that you know a great deal about. You headed up, as I recall, an organization in the State of New York that was specifically looking at how to enhance the research within the State. Share that and then also share about our policies, as Democrats, for enhancing research.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Who represents that district? It is Tonko?

Mr. GARAMENDI. I'll give you another example of how policy can change what has happened. For a long, long time, we would send our tax dollars overseas to buy buses, railcars, light rail, ferryboats, and the like. Every one of us who buys gasoline or diesel fuel pays a Federal tax on that--18\1/2\ cents for gasoline and 25 cents for diesel fuel. That money is used to build transportation systems--roads, bridges and the like. And where does it go? The Buy American laws were largely ignored. However, in the American Recovery Act, in the stimulus bill, money was provided for the additional purchase of railcars, buses, and ferryboats. Somehow, wisely, the Democrats, who authored the bill, put in a clause that said that that money could only be used--only be used--to buy American-made equipment. So what happened in Sacramento, California, is that Siemens, the large German manufacturing company, decided that they would like to have some of that stimulus money. They wanted to build streetcars, light-rail systems, so they opened and expanded their manufacturing plant in Sacramento to manufacture the streetcars for Austin, Texas, and San Diego--made in America because of a law that was passed. It is a prime example of what can be done when we pass the right law that says that our tax money must be used to buy American-made equipment.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. I notice that we still have a minute. I see my Republican colleagues are going to take the floor in a few moments. If I recall last week when they did this, they said the answer lies in doing away with regulations. Clearly, regulations are a piece of the issue.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Beyond that, let's talk about the specific policies that we've been discussing here in the House--legislation that has been introduced--that will bring back the American manufacturing sector because, indeed, it was specific laws that were written here over the years that were largely, in my view, responsible for that outsourcing of jobs. It's an interesting word, ``outsourcing.'' Until December of 2010, an American corporation could receive a tax cut for every job it outsourced. That's largely over. There is a little bit more to be done, but most of those tax breaks have been eliminated by a law that was passed by the Democrats--not one Republican voted for it--eliminating the tax break for the outsourcing of American jobs. The President said it so very well in his State of the Union. He said that we should not reward companies for sending jobs overseas; rather, we should reward them for bringing those jobs back to the United States. That can be done by some of the policies that we're talking about. The President signed a bill, authored by Democrats and voted on by all Democrats and a few Republicans, that actually encouraged that by giving companies a 100 percent immediate expensing of all capital equipment that they would invest in the United States. Those are two examples. I know you've got some that you've been interested in, that you're actually authoring, and you may want to talk about those. Then we'll come back and talk about the specific things that we can do.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you very much for joining me. I needed a break.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to share with those folks that are watching C-SPAN--and hopefully there are many--some of the issues that really confront America today. We just heard an hour discussion on the fate of the American family, and it comes at that issue from one specific point of view and one specific section of the total problem, and that has to do with the issue of marriage and how we define marriage here in the United States. But there's also another way to, and other very, very important issues that define the fate of the American family. And I'd like to take that issue up tonight in the context of the economy. The American family is faced with many, many challenges. One of the most significant challenges is income, jobs. How can the American family make it in America today? What does it take for an American family to make it? One of the most compelling charts that I've seen over these last several months is this one, which really describes the fate of the American family compared to the fate of the top 1 percent of Americans. We've seen an enormous shift in the income and the wealth in America over the last 30 years, largely because of governmental policies. This blue line indicates how well the superwealthy are doing. They've seen nearly a 370 percent increase in their annual income. Their wealth would see a similar enormous increase. Down here on the bottom are the rest of Americans, the other 99 percent. If you took all of this together, you would see that the bottom 50 percent have seen very, very little increase in their annual income; and most of that increase is due to both husbands and wives working simultaneously. This is the challenge for the American family. How do they make it in America when, in America, we've seen an enormous decline in the great American manufacturing sector, where the middle class really, really succeeded? And so, tonight, what I'd like to talk about with my colleagues who will shortly be joining me is how we can make it in America by, once again, ``Making it in America.'' We can do this. In America, manufacturing matters. American manufacturing has been in deep trouble for the last 20 years. That trouble has been caused by a variety of issues, some of which are beyond the control of anybody in this Nation, and certainly any Member of Congress or the Senate and the Presidency. But a far greater part of the American manufacturing issue has been governmental policy. Let's see if we can lay the foundation for a discussion on what it takes to once again make it in America. This charts shows what has happened to American manufacturing since 1975. In the seventies, American manufacturing peaked out somewhere just under 20 million American jobs. Those were the good days. That's when the American middle class was at its peak, when more Americans were enjoying the greatest share of the wealth in this country. That was the time when America was at its ultimate strength, when we had the greatest economy anywhere in the world. Beginning in that year in the mid-seventies, we've seen a steady decline of the American manufacturing base. We've seen that decline for a number of reasons. What we need to understand is that through the seventies and into the eighties, and even into the nineties, even though there was a slight decline from some 19 to 17 million manufacturing jobs, it was in the century of 2000-2010 that the great decline took place. We are now down to just over 11 million manufacturing jobs in this country. Why did this happen? Why did we see this great decline? As we try to answer that question, we need to also understand that there was a great increase in one, two, and three sectors of the American economy, but it was not matched by the manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sector was headed downward from 19 million to just over 11 million jobs. At the same time, the American economy was on fire. The finance, insurance, and real estate economy took off in the United States. I think all of us have heard the term ``financial engineering.'' I am a graduate of Harvard Business School. Financial engineering was their schtick. That's what they wanted to do. It wasn't over at the engineering or the nuclear engineering or the chemical engineering schools, it was across the river at the business school, and at every other business school in America. If you wanted to make it in America, you had to be a financial engineer. We saw the economy grow in the areas of Wall Street finance, insurance, real estate. And throughout the nineties, it peaked out. The best and the brightest of America decided that they didn't want to be in manufacturing. After all, that was some sort of dirty, greasy job. They wanted to be financial engineers in real estate, insurance, and Wall Street finance. We know where that got us. What that did to us was get us into the great bubble of 2000-2007, and the great crash that occurred. Financial engineering turned out to be nothing but paper. We're not talking about dollars here; we are talking about worthless paper. That worthless paper nearly crashed the world economy. So there we have it. We became financial engineers rather than chemical engineers, manufacturing, and the rest. Where did our money go? Where did the American wealth go? As we saw the decline of the jobs in manufacturing, we also saw the rise of imports. If you go back to the year 1976, you will see that we were running a very small trade deficit. We were importing and exporting approximately the same amount. What we were exporting was American-made equipment. We were exporting food that had been processed, food that had been grown. We were exporting machinery, machine tools, and airplanes. We were the great exporter of the world. Then Government policy began to shift, and we wound up here in 2008, the great exporters of American money, the great exporters of American wealth. We need to turn this around. We've seen a slight improvement here in the most recent years, but all of this red is basically China. What's happened is that the United States has given up its manufacturing power to China, and to a few other countries. We can see this in certain industries, for example, the automobile industry. Thankfully, as a result of laws that were passed by the Democrats and signed by President Obama giving him the power, through the stimulus program, the American Recovery Act, to bail out the American automobile industry, he did. The President said, On my watch, I will not allow the American auto industry to die. And he took action. He bailed out General Motors and Chrysler. In so doing, he saved the American auto industry and the tens of thousands of small businesses that rely upon that industry for their jobs. However, that's only part of the story. Here is the rest of the story. Other countries that are automotive manufacturers have been able to increase their supply chain. And while we still have an automobile manufacturing sector in the United States, we heavily depend upon imported parts for the assembly of automobiles here in the United States. So other countries actually manufacture the parts, and assemble the autos. But not in the United States. We assemble, but we also import many of the parts. We can change this, and here is what the Democrats want to do: We want to change the trend line. We want to rebuild the great American manufacturing sector. And we can, with good, wise, public policies. We say make it in America so that America and Americans can make it once again. Manufacturing matters. As my colleagues begin to join me, I want to share with you some of the ways in which we can do that. Here are the policies that we want to put in place: We want to seek manufacturing within the United States. We want jobs and income within the United States. We are targeting specific industries, and we want to align the trade and tax policies in the United States so that we can once again reignite the American Dream. We're going to go into these in somewhat more detail as my good friend from New York (Mr. Tonko) takes over for a moment.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want all Members to pause for a moment and think about your family, think about your community, and the people you represent. I want you to put in your mind Alzheimer's and the effect that it has on the individuals and families. Now are you envisioning the effect of Alzheimer's, not only on the individual but on the family? I want you to put in your mind that terrible auto accident that left that young child totally disabled. I want you to put in your mind the diabetic, think about the diabetic, long-term diabetes, and the effect that it has. Now, the point of my amendment is not to kill this bill but rather to amend it in such a way that it can be taken up on the floor with all of us supporting this. Long-term care is a major challenge for families, for individuals, and for this Nation. Today 5.4 million Americans have Alzheimer's, and at the end of this decade, it's expected to double, more than 10 million. Keep that vision of the Alzheimer's patient in mind. It may be someone in your family or in your circle. Twenty-four million Americans have diabetes, 26 million have heart disease. Think of that stroke victim. You know that person. They've been our colleagues, disabled, and in many cases, totally disabled. What this amendment does is to deal with a profound problem in America. How do we care for those who are disabled, unable to care for themselves for a lengthy period of time? How do we do that? There is no effective way to do it today until that individual and family is flat broke. There is no mechanism today to deal with this problem unless you have become totally bankrupt, no assets, and then you get to go on the Medicaid program, a burden on our general fund and on every State's general fund. This amendment offers a solution. This amendment says that we will keep the CLASS Act in effect but seek a national voluntary insurance program. Now, I happen to know insurance, and I happen to know that all of the long-term insurance programs out there have failed to work because they are narrow, because they've been unable to reach across the broad spectrum of America to provide a broad base of risk. You need a very, very large pool to deal with this very large and very expensive problem. If my amendment is adopted, we will be able to go forward and to repair the CLASS Act into a voluntary insurance program that would involve the entire Nation and thereby provide a premium that is affordable. The present programs do not. As we know from the CLASS Act itself and the work done by the Department of Health and Human Services, it too is flawed. But the problem remains. The problem has not disappeared. It is in fact in every one of our families and, quite possibly, with us as individuals. We need a solution. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, we have to find a solution to this problem because now it falls back. When all other resources are gone for the individual and the family, it falls back onto the general fund of the State and the Federal Government. Not a good solution at all. So I ask for your support on this. If you adopt this amendment, we will immediately vote on the CLASS Act itself, and it will be repealed, but not real. It will be maintained as we work forward towards a solution. That's our task here. That's our task as Members of Congress. Find solutions for the real problems that face every American. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am in its present form.