11:00 PM EDT

John Garamendi, D-CA 3rd

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of order. We are going to be facing that with my other six amendments, but I would like to speak to this issue and also to the others at the same time, and I will drop the other amendments.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of driving across San Francisco Bay on the brandnew east San Francisco Bay Bridge, a multibillion-dollar project. The steel of that project in its main section was built in China. It was fabricated in China. The Chinese steel company built a new steel mill, the most advanced in the world. There were 3,000 Chinese jobs and zero American jobs.

The way they are able to get around the Buy American provisions is that the State of California segmented the multibillion-dollar project into 20 different pieces, therefore avoiding the Buy America provisions on this crucial center span of that bridge. This amendment would prohibit that from ever happening again.

The other amendments speak to the $50 billion that is going to be spent by this bill and would require, in various [Page: H5183]

ways, that that money be spent here in America on American-made goods, American steel, American products, and on American workers.

We ought to buy in America. We ought to make this other national policy. We ought never have another Bay Bridge. We ought to do what we did in the American Recovery Act that required that some $800 million for Amtrak locomotives be spent on 100 percent American-made. Indeed, Siemens, a German company, has established a manufacturing plant in Sacramento to manufacture those locomotives.

One of the other amendments I will not be taking up tonight deals specifically with the rolling stock for public transportation, that it, too, be American-made and that we increase the percentage of American content from 60 percent to 100 percent.

This is American taxpayer money. That money ought to be spent in America. American taxpayers should demand it. The Members of Congress should demand that their taxpayers' money be spent on American-made equipment, goods, and services. This is part of the Make It In America agenda.

It is most specific here at this time, as we are about to, in the next day, spend $50 billion of American taxpayer money. Are we going to spend it on American-made equipment, American goods and services? Or are they going to be coming from China or somewhere else in the world?

The question is very straightforward for all of us. Unfortunately, because of the point of order that will be raised on this and the other six amendments, we will not have a chance tonight, tomorrow, and perhaps in the days ahead, to really do something for America in rebuilding our manufacturing sector by requiring that our taxpayer money be spent on American-made goods, services, and on American workers.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

POINT OF ORDER

11:00 PM EDT

John Garamendi, D-CA 3rd

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of order. We are going to be facing that with my other six amendments, but I would like to speak to this issue and also to the others at the same time, and I will drop the other amendments.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of driving across San Francisco Bay on the brandnew east San Francisco Bay Bridge, a multibillion-dollar project. The steel of that project in its main section was built in China. It was fabricated in China. The Chinese steel company built a new steel mill, the most advanced in the world. There were 3,000 Chinese jobs and zero American jobs.

The way they are able to get around the Buy American provisions is that the State of California segmented the multibillion-dollar project into 20 different pieces, therefore avoiding the Buy America provisions on this crucial center span of that bridge. This amendment would prohibit that from ever happening again.

The other amendments speak to the $50 billion that is going to be spent by this bill and would require, in various [Page: H5183]

ways, that that money be spent here in America on American-made goods, American steel, American products, and on American workers.

We ought to buy in America. We ought to make this other national policy. We ought never have another Bay Bridge. We ought to do what we did in the American Recovery Act that required that some $800 million for Amtrak locomotives be spent on 100 percent American-made. Indeed, Siemens, a German company, has established a manufacturing plant in Sacramento to manufacture those locomotives.

One of the other amendments I will not be taking up tonight deals specifically with the rolling stock for public transportation, that it, too, be American-made and that we increase the percentage of American content from 60 percent to 100 percent.

This is American taxpayer money. That money ought to be spent in America. American taxpayers should demand it. The Members of Congress should demand that their taxpayers' money be spent on American-made equipment, goods, and services. This is part of the Make It In America agenda.

It is most specific here at this time, as we are about to, in the next day, spend $50 billion of American taxpayer money. Are we going to spend it on American-made equipment, American goods and services? Or are they going to be coming from China or somewhere else in the world?

The question is very straightforward for all of us. Unfortunately, because of the point of order that will be raised on this and the other six amendments, we will not have a chance tonight, tomorrow, and perhaps in the days ahead, to really do something for America in rebuilding our manufacturing sector by requiring that our taxpayer money be spent on American-made goods, services, and on American workers.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

POINT OF ORDER

11:00 PM EDT

Tom Latham, R-IA 3rd

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of compliance with a law not otherwise applicable.

The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.

GRAYSON

11:03 PM EDT

Tom Latham, R-IA 3rd

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment directly amends existing law and is not merely perfecting to the existing text of the bill.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?

11:03 PM EDT

Tom Latham, R-IA 3rd

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment directly amends existing law and is not merely perfecting to the existing text of the bill.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?

11:04 PM EDT

Tom Latham, R-IA 3rd

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of compliance with a law not otherwise applicable.

The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.

GRAYSON