Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I rise to speak about yet another phony, created crisis, and that would be the crisis of the United States Postal Service, which we have heard is hemorrhaging--hemorrhaging--money. Well, it's kind of interesting. If you look back since in 2006, Congress forced the United States Postal Service to prepay health care retirement benefits for people who have not yet been born who might some day go to work for the Postal Service. Now, if you had trouble following that, I'd understand it. No one else in America, no other business, no other agency of government, as far as I know, no entity in the world is prepaying the anticipated health care costs of people who haven't yet been born, let alone if they're a specific entity, people who haven't yet been born and might go to work for them some day and might retire and might then need health care, but we're making the Postal Service do that. Now, I'm not, but the Congress assembled deemed that, snuck it into one of those midnight special bills in a lame-duck session of Congress. So, now the hemorrhaging. Well, they're hemorrhaging money, hemorrhaging money. Oh, my God, we must do away with them. That's basically the Republican line here. They, so far, have done nothing to either unshackle the post office so it can deal with some of these problems, and, in fact, have encouraged the most destructive instincts of the idiot who is running the Postal Service, who should be fired by the President, to go to 5-day delivery and to close all the sorting centers. Under the plan of the Postmaster General, it will take longer for a first-class letter to go from my town of Springfield across the river to the city of Eugene than it took Thomas Jefferson to mail a letter from Monticello to the Continental Congress. Yes, really, that's what he's planning. Now, that's not going to cause a bunch of people to abandon the Postal Service--of course not, that will help their revenue. No, it won't. With this benign neglect, the indifference, the refusal to act over here in the House, we're watching the Postal Service spiral down the drain, both the good and the bad of the Postal Service. If you didn't make them prepay health care retirement benefits for people who haven't yet been born, who haven't yet gone to work for them, over the last 6 years, instead of saying they lost $41,200,000,000, actually, it would come down to about $9 billion. They prepaid $32 billion of health care retirement benefits, $32 billion. That is by far the large majority of their red ink. Just about 80 percent of their red ink is due to them being forced to do something that no other entity on Earth is being forced to do. If you want to look for a phony, manufactured crisis, this is it. Yes, they still have a small problem. That would be about a billion and a half dollars a year. If we unshackled them a bit, let them get into some new lines of business--which the Republicans are refusing to do-- if we allowed them to set rates rationally--they've got a couple of lines of business as they call them that make money, and they have others that lose money. But they're allowed only to increase rates-- even if it is losing money to deliver junk mail--by a cost-of-living increase, which it would obviously be less than a penny on junk mail delivery costs. The same on first-class. If we allowed them to set their rates reasonably, if we took away this mandate of prefunding retirement health care costs for people who haven't yet been born, who haven't yet gone to work for them, and if we settled up on the old dispute over their overpayment for the civil service retirees who got rolled into the FERS system with the Postal Service, actually we could have a viable entity and one that would continue to serve America into the next century. The post office pioneered optical scanning. They used to have some visionary leadership over there. They need new leadership. They need to be unshackled by Congress. They need to have unfair burdens lifted. But they don't need to be destroyed. That's where we're headed, towards the destruction of the Postal Service at this point in time. Some say young people don't use it, no one needs it, who needs it. They're delivering packages for FedEx and UPS to places where FedEx and UPS doesn't want to go. They've partnered with FedEx and UPS. They deliver packages for small businesses and with their one-price package that FedEx and UPS can't afford, which are vital to thousands of small businesses in my State and millions nationwide. They deliver prescriptions. Yes, they deliver prescriptions on Saturdays for veterans and others. We need to fix the Postal Service, not destroy it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. So in the middle of a busy legislative week, the Republicans are going to bring up a bill to require the President to submit a balanced budget. It would be good if first perhaps they looked in the mirror, because this comes from the same House Republicans who in the last Congress passed the Ryan budget which got great accolades from the right. Unfortunately, the Ryan budget, even with directed scoring, that is, made-up numbers, the pretend ``if you cut taxes, you'll increase revenues,'' wouldn't pretend to balance a budget until 2040--and that was after it did away with Medicare, student financial aid, and a few other domestic programs. Now let's get real around here. One-third of the deficit is due to high unemployment. We need a strategy to put Americans back to work. That requires investment--investment in education, investment in our roads, bridges, highways, transit systems, jetties, levees, dams, and harbors across the country. That would put Americans back to work. That would get this country moving again, not a bunch of fake bills about a budget that they have no intention of balancing.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. All but those in total denial--and there is a lot of that inside the D.C. Beltway--would admit that we need a combination of increased revenues, taxes--the gentleman before me disagrees--and spending cuts to restore fiscal stability. Especially with a still-weak economy, we don't need blanket tax increases that would hit the hardworking families of the middle class, and we don't need brain-dead, across-the-board spending cuts that mete out the same percentage cuts to wasteful and unneeded programs and high-functioning essential programs. We can do better, and the American people deserve better. In that spirit, I offer the following ideas. Pick one of the numbers floating out there. Let's restore the Clinton-era tax rates on income over $250,000, $400,000, $450,000. They are bargaining out there. Whatever. We are restoring the Clinton-era tax rates. We're not going back to Eisenhower. We're talking about Clinton-era tax rates for income above that level. Restore the same Clinton-era tax rates on unearned income when there were a lot more productive investments out there, delay the across-the- board cuts for 30 days, give the new Congress a chance to make smarter, targeted cuts of equal value, and fix the Medicare reimbursement so that seniors aren't threatened in the middle of the month from not being able to get medical care, and extend unemployment. Come on, don't be cruel to people who can't find jobs and want to find them, although some on that side deny they're looking for work. It's not the specifics really that I want to talk about here. It's the procedure. That's what will solve this because this is Washington. It's not about reality. Now, here it is: the midnight magic plan. We begin debate at 10 p.m. For the first 2 hours, everybody can go to their usual corners. The Republicans could decry the increased taxes on job creators, on income over $250,000 or $400,000 or $450,000. The Republicans could stay true to their pledge to Grover Norquist to never, ever raise taxes for any purpose, never. Democrats could say it's not enough; it doesn't restore tax fairness. We could have the usual debate for 2 hours. At midnight we stop, sing ``Auld Lang Syne,'' come together a little bit, and then the midnight magic. Now, the same bill is cutting taxes for 98 percent of the working people in the United States of America, the Democrats would have protected Social Security and Medicare, and both sides get a chance over 30 days to legislate--God forbid we should legislate around here-- targeted cuts instead of the meat-axe approach to cutting spending. I think that's the best we can do for the American people. We transmogrify this bill with the magic of midnight from one that increases taxes on the job creators--income over $250,000 or $450,000-- to one that actually gives tax cuts to 98 percent of America, something both sides can go home and brag about. No cliff.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. As I speak on the floor today, the Republicans are in conference with Speaker Boehner, talking about and getting an update on the so-called ``fiscal cliff'' negotiations. There seems to have been some progress. A number of us are opposed to the idea of reducing further the already inadequate COLA granted to seniors on Social Security, but in some other areas there does seem to have been some meaningful progress. I was particularly pleased to hear that the White House is insisting that infrastructure investment needs to be part of this negotiation. A third of our deficit is due to chronic high unemployment in the United States of America. If we could put people back to work, a third of the deficit goes away. What if we put them to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure? There are 150,000 bridges in America that need substantial repair or replacement. Forty percent of the pavement on the National Highway System doesn't just need resurfacing. It needs to be dug up; it needs new roadbed. And there is a $70 billion backlog on transit systems in this country, replacing worn, outmoded equipment. Those are manufacturing jobs, energy jobs--jobs not only in construction, but in many other areas; and they spill over into small business and the general economy. We also need to build an efficient 21st century infrastructure. It's about 27,000 jobs for every billion dollars we invest. Now, historically we haven't borrowed money to make these investments. We have paid for our infrastructure with fees and taxes--principally the gas tax, but others, but the Federal gas tax hasn't changed since 1993. In 1993, you paid $1.11 for a gallon of gas and 18.4 cents went to build our national infrastructure. This last year in my district, people paid over $4.40 for a gallon of gas and 18.4 cents went to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. We've lost more than a third of the purchasing power of the highway trust fund just due to inflation. Over the next 2 years we will borrow $18 billion just to tread water with the highway trust fund, and if we want to tread water over the next 10 years we'll borrow another $110 billion. Will that happen in deficit-obsessed Washington, D.C.? Not likely. Does that mean quicker deterioration of our infrastructure? Does that mean we forego the jobs? Perhaps not. If we just simply indexed the existing Federal gas tax set in 1993 at 18.4 cents to highway cost construction inflation and improved fleet fuel economy--so that you don't lose ground because people purchase less gas--we could, over the next decade, save $128 billion--deficit reduction--and have an additional increment on top of that to begin to catch up with the huge backlog in our crumbling infrastructure in this country and put millions of people to work. It seems a very sensible solution: deficit reduction, jobs, and sound infrastructure. I hope those on the other side of the aisle will be receptive to the proposals from the White House for this needed investment. This isn't the stupid stimulus bill that threw everything but the kitchen sink at the economy. Many things were not well spent. Four percent of that money went to infrastructure investment; over 40 percent went to stupid tax cuts that didn't put anybody back to work.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, yesterday the Republicans released a vague press release saying it constituted a counteroffer to the President's roadmap to avoid driving over the fiscal cliff. Now, the Republican plan purports to cut $1.3 trillion and raise $800 billion in new revenues. It did contain four specifics. Four. Cut Medicare, specific number 1, $600 billion. Cut Medicaid, pays for nursing homes for seniors, of course, priority number 2. Cut the already inadequate COLA for seniors on Social Security, even though 40 percent of seniors depend principally or totally upon Social Security, and the COLA already underestimates inflation, particularly for medical care, prescription drugs, and other essentials they have to buy. Cut that. Not a driver of the deficit but, hey, why not? Cut that. One more specific, preserve the Bush-era tax rates for income over $250,000. Now, there's a big misunderstanding about that. It's not a tax increase on everybody who earns over $250,000. It's only the income over $250,000 that would get additional taxes if the Bush-era rates went away and the President's proposal was passed. But, no, they want to preserve that, totally preserve tax cuts for people with income over $250,000. They also want to preserve the reduced capital gains rate and dividends rate which principally benefits--who else--millionaires and billionaires. Now, they did promise the J. Wellington Wimpy revenue plan. Remember J. Wellington Wimpy? Popeye, I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. That's their revenue plan. Next year we'll close unspecified tax loopholes, but we're going to lower the tax rates on investor income, lower the tax rates on the people at the top. But they're going to raise $800 billion by closing unspecified loopholes. What would that be? Do they want to take away the middle class' one tax shelter, that is, the ability to deduct the interest on their home mortgage? Probably. If they're going to raise that $800 billion, it's going to come from something pretty big, and they don't want to touch the billionaire- millionaire job-creator class. Now, that's a pretty interesting position, and their position is the job creators who earn over $250,000 a year will go on strike, strike if their tax rates go up. They won't produce jobs. Tell me about the jobs they have produced in the last decade with those tax cuts. It doesn't seem to work, does it? But in the Clinton era, when their rates went up to 39.6 from 35, they paid a little bit more and, guess what, the economy boomed. We had 3.8 percent unemployment, we balanced the budget, and we paid down debt. But now they're saying if they went back to those Clinton-era rates, disaster would result. Well, you know what? That's the same thing they said when they opposed Clinton tax increases in '94. They said disaster will result. Not a single Republican, fiscal conservatives that they are, voted for the increases in taxes that President Clinton put forward, which ultimately led to a balanced budget and paying down debt for the first time in 50 years. Not one of them because they said it would bring economic disaster and, instead, it brought prosperity. So they just brought out that old broken record. They glued it back together, or maybe they, you know, translated it into a digital format or something, but they're playing it again, and it's as valid now as it was then. So it's the same old plan. Stick it to the middle class, stick it to the seniors, and benefit the ultra-wealthy in this country. That's not a new plan. That's the same old broken record.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. A group of millionaire and billionaire CEOs that call themselves the Campaign to Fix the Debt is visiting the White House today. According to Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Social Security must be reduced. It didn't contribute anything to the debt or deficit, but that's his solution. What did he say? He said: You're going to have to do something undoubtedly to lower people's expectations of what they're going to get. He went on to say: Social Security wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career. Well, his arrogance is only exceeded by his ignorance. That's not the way Social Security works, Mr. Blankfein. It's an earned benefit. I know you wouldn't know about that because you've got $11.9 million in your retirement fund, and you're not too worried about the future of Social Security. The average benefit is $14,000 a year, and most people work 45 years to get that. And you say they need to lower their expectations? Well, I've got a solution for you: pay Social Security tax on all your income, and you too will get a benefit. And you might need it because we're not bailing out Wall Street again.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank my friend, the gentleman, for the time. We could, today on the floor, just replay the debate from 11 years ago in the lame-duck session about China. It's about exporting U.S. goods to China. Just get them in the WTO, give them permanent normal trade relations, and they'll follow the rules. Well, when we adopted that, our trade deficit with China was $84 billion. Today it's $295 billion. The issue isn't the tariffs the Russians have. The issue wasn't the tariffs that the Chinese had. It's all of their manipulation and nontariff barriers that go into these nonmarket economies. How is it going to be any difference with Russia? The debate is disconnected from the reality. We're concerned about Syria, so let's reward them with permanent normal trade relations. You can't go to the WTO and complain about the Russians supporting a thug who's killing his people in Syria. That's not something you can use the WTO for. We are giving up the tools we have to try and push Russia on economic issues; and we're binding ourselves to this international body, which has a secret dispute resolution process with unelected bureaucrats who have no conflict-of-interest rules. Now, that's a powerful tool we're going to use against those Russians. It worked real well against the Chinese. It doesn't work against the way the Chinese are manipulating their markets to keep out our goods, to steal our international property, and all the host of other unfair trade practices there that the Russians can just duplicate very easily. The WTO is not the solution to these issues. We have more power today with a bilateral agreement. We have more power today with the capability of depriving them of a normal trade relation status with the United States. If we want to use our clout, we should vote this bill down. And it's not just about Syria and human rights and a host of other abuses in Russia. It's about American jobs. Today, the biggest export under the WTO for the last 15 years has been American jobs. How is that going to change by binding us, one more time, to the WTO with one more nonmarket, essentially dictatorial economy with a corrupt regime running the country? How is that going to work any differently than it has worked with China? It won't. This is a recipe for more job loss. It's not about saying, Oh, the terrorists will go away, and they're just going to start buying all our goods. No, it's not going to happen. All the same abuses that we have seen in China will be replicated by the regime in Russia, and it will become, yet again, another large addition to the deficit side of our ledger on trade. I urge Members to oppose this.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the Republican refrain is quite familiar: these tax increases will cause economic devastation, a recession, millions of lost jobs. Is that today's fiscal cliff? No. Actually, that's the Republicans in opposing the Clinton-era tax increases, 1993, opposed by every Republican. Did their predicted doom and gloom come true? Well, kind of not, actually. We balanced the budget, we paid down debt, and we had 3.8 percent unemployment while the millionaires and billionaires were paying a slightly higher rate of taxes. Fast forward to today's debate: restore the Clinton-era tax rates to millionaires and billionaires. Republicans have dusted off the nineties rhetoric--economic collapse, devastation, at least 700,000 jobs. The job-creator millionaires and billionaires, they're living on the edge. They have no discretionary income. Any modest increase in taxes to them will stop them from making productive, job-creating investments, like the hundreds of millions of dollars they spent on super PACs in the last election to try and elect a President and a Congress that will bend to their will and lower their taxes even further while cutting middle-income families' programs that are essential, like Social Security and student financial aid. Now, after their impassioned defense of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, Republicans do have a second priority--they're not a one-note party, so you've got to give them credit for that--and that is to somehow kill Social Security, which they've never supported. They think it makes people lazy. Well, there are millionaires and billionaires that don't ever expect they will need it, so they don't care. And under the guise of deficit reduction, the Republicans are saying, well, we've either got to privatize Social Security, got to increase the retirement age, or we've got to reduce the already inadequate COLA that seniors get. Let's chain the CPI. That's their refrain: we must cut entitlements. Well, guess what, Social Security has never contributed one penny to the deficit or the debt of the United States of America. It is a program which pays for itself. So why this single-minded focus on cutting Social Security? Yeah, it does have a projected problem of about 23 percent to pay full benefits starting in 2036. So, yeah, there's a long-term problem; but, actually, that's quite easily fixed. All we have to do is close the tax loophole. And maybe we agree there. Here's a loophole I'd like to close: Why does a millionaire pay one- tenth the rate of taxes to Social Security of a cop on the beat, or a soldier in the field, or a teacher in the classroom? I don't know. That's what the law says. Well, how about we lift the cap and have the millionaires and billionaires pay the same percent of their income to Social Security as cops and teachers and soldiers in the military. Seems fair to me. There's a loophole we could close. And that would give Social Security assets adequate to pay 100 percent of benefits for at least 75 years into the future, as far as the actuaries will guarantee. So there's a loophole we can agree on closing, hopefully. But they are going to have to give up on this lame argument that somehow making millionaires and billionaires pay taxes at the rate of the Clinton era, when we had record low unemployment, will hurt our economy.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Does that mean there's only one speaker on their side?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, today, the do-nothing Congress will slink out of town. It's going to be the earliest adjournment in an election year since 1960; but, you know, I guess the Nation has no problems and there's no work undone, so it's just time to go home and campaign. It's pretty extraordinary. We've enacted one-quarter the number of bills into law of Harry Truman's do-nothing Congress, 1947-48. So I guess this is the ``do-nothing-er'' Congress. So here we are again today. We are going to consider today--the only work today will be four bills that have previously passed the House. Someone hasn't read their civics textbooks. If you pass a bill and send it to the Senate, it's there; they'll consider it or they won't consider it. If you pass it again and send it again, it doesn't make any difference. In fact, it's somewhat repetitive and wasteful of everybody's time when we could be doing postal reform to ensure the future of the post office. We could be doing a farm bill; there are a lot of people suffering a horrible drought. We could be dealing with the sequestration, which there's concern on both sides of the aisle on that. But we're not. We're considering four bills previously passed and one new one. Well, I have a reasonable amendment to an unreasonable bill, which is now before us, which is the one new bill before us. My amendment would ask that within 6 months--that's not very long--the Department of Transportation and the EPA submit a report to Congress on fugitive coal dust. Now, it seems a couple of extraordinary letters have been sent out saying, my God, this will stop projects and exports that are going forward--undue delay. I'm not aware of anything that would be delayed by this. It says a study will be done; it doesn't delay any ongoing applications or projects at all. But what it would do is potentially avert a tremendous amount of litigation down the road. If we find that fugitive coal dust is not a problem--which the coal industry says--then that would relieve a lot of people in gateway ports and large cities in the West where coal dust is being proposed to transit through those cities, including cities in my district. People are very concerned about this. They want to know, is it a problem. How far from the loading point does fugitive coal dust get emitted from the car? Are there ways to deal with the fugitive coal dust? Does the surfactant work? Is that a solution? Should the cars be covered? Is that a solution? What are the problems? What are the problems at its destination in terms of whether or not there would be coal dust at the port destinations? If the coal is stored outside, how is it transported onto the ship? Et cetera, et cetera. So if we had these answers, we could talk about the safe and clean transport and allay a lot of concerns that are ultimately going to lead to a lot of litigation unless we know. Now, the industry says, oh, it's been studied. Well, no, it hasn't. In fact, one railroad has pursued action against the coal industry because fugitive coal dust has caused safety problems on the railroad. It gets into the ballast; it blocks the ballast from draining. The ballast destabilizes, the tracks destabilize, and trains can derail. Now, that seems to me like a problem that should be dealt with. And there may be some very, very simple ways to deal with it. Some say surfactants; some say covered cars. There are other potential solutions out there. Wouldn't it be good to know? Wouldn't it be good to know? That's all I'm saying. A 6-month study and a report to Congress won't delay anything at all. It just would give us some knowledge. And I would hope that we legislate around here with a little bit of knowledge and not just off the cuff. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Again, we will hear apocryphal denouncements from the other side of the aisle--this will cost millions of jobs and billions of dollars and stymie our exports. No, it's a study. It's a study that would take 6 months. It's a study that, if it agrees with the industry's conclusions, would assure the American public that there won't be problems with these trains transiting through their hometowns. It's something we should know. It's something the government should look at. Apparently, there are some propriety studies that we aren't allowed to see that say there's no problem. Well, if that's true, then the railroads and the industry should let the American public see those propriety studies. Really, not too many people are willing to take someone at their word when it comes to an issue of public health. So it's a very simple amendment. It won't delay anything; it will take 6 months. It will cost very little, and it will give us the information and knowledge we need to figure out how to safely transport coal. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, today, I am voting in favor of H.R. 6213. First and foremost, the American taxpayer should not take a backseat to venture capitalists. This bill ensures that any loan default falls first on the company's investors and remaining assets instead of on the taxpayer. The Department of Energy's loan guarantee program needs better oversight to protect taxpayers from the financial risks of emerging technologies in a competitive and volatile energy market. I am also concerned that the loan guarantee program, which was created under the Bush administration in 2005, heavily favors thermal industries--including coal. This money would be better spent on innovative, cutting-edge technologies that will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, cut greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, and make the United States more energy independent. Limited federal dollars should go to creating high-wage, high-tech jobs that can't be exported--they should not be used to subsidize the largest energy companies that have benefited from billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and decades of federal support. That's why I am also voting for Representative Waxman's amendment. H.R. 6213 allows DOE to use its existing authority to award $34 billion in loan guarantees to projects on the Republican-deemed ``winners' list.'' This is a list of 50 or so applications that were submitted to DOE prior to the end of 2011. More than three-quarters of the applications are from the nuclear and coal industries. By voting in favor of Representative Waxman's amendment, I support allowing DOE to consider new applications until the remaining loan guarantee dollars are exhausted. This will create a level playing field for all technologies including renewables like wind, solar, and biomass.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the Speaker. About 27 miles away from here, secret negotiations are ongoing. A number of us have asked to be allowed to observe the negotiations because it will have a dramatic impact on the future of the United States of America and our economy, but no Member of Congress has been allowed into these negotiations. This is over something called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It's essentially NAFTA for the whole Pacific Rim. Now, imagine how well that's going to work. NAFTA, of course, has cost the U.S. hundreds of thousands of jobs in many industries. Now, this is a new agreement, a new forum, the President has put his stamp on it, it is called a living agreement, meaning it's being negotiated among a small number of relatively small countries, but the U.S. is running the show. But later on, other countries, like Japan and China, can plug in. We know very little about what's being negotiated because, again, the documents are all kept secret from Members of Congress. They have been shared, however, with 600 corporations who, at the click of a mouse, can access them through a secure site on-line. But yet no Member of Congress is allowed to see these documents, no one representing the American people. Now, the problem is that we have had some leaks, and the analysis is if Japan is allowed to join, and the U.S. is trying to get Japan to join, we'll lose 90,000 automotive jobs immediately. This is yet another example of failed trade policy of the United States of America. It is also rumored--again remember, no elected representative of the American people is allowed to view these documents which 600 U.S. corporations are allowed to review and annotate and make suggestions on--that it would have intellectual property restrictions that would far exceed those that were already rejected by the elected representatives of the American people, the House and the Senate, so-called SOPA and PIPA. These intellectual property restrictions in this agreement, it is rumored, will far exceed those already rejected, yet they would be binding on the United States of America, again going around our elected representatives. It is also rumored that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is seeking to roll back previous reforms that even George Bush negotiated in the U.S.-Peru FTA that enhanced access to affordable medicines. The pharmaceutical industry doesn't like inexpensive, affordable, life- saving medicines. That would be rolled back. Further, it would allow drug companies to challenge the price formularies in Canada. Remember, U.S. citizens can buy drugs made by U.S. companies in the U.S. much more cheaply in Canada than here because the Canadian government negotiates on their behalf. It's rumored that this agreement would force Canada to raise their drug prices. It is also rumored that it might actually prohibit the United States Government from negotiating or allowing under part D Medicare-- pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies are involved but the insurance companies can negotiate under authority of law lower drug prices. It may also prohibit the drug formulary for Medicaid which saves hundreds of millions and billions of dollars a year, and the VA, which provides our veterans with low-cost pharmaceuticals. All of those things may be preempted by this Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now, this is really an extraordinary thing that this is being done in secret and no Member of Congress is allowed to review it. It has one chapter we know about, which is so egregious that Australia has said they have to have a total exemption. And the U.S. has said, sure, okay. We understand you want to protect your people. We'll let you do that, but we don't want to protect ours. This is a little provision, similar to NAFTA, which gives corporations the power to challenge in foreign tribunals--not U.S. courts--our domestic laws that protect consumers and the environment. We would now give this authority to corporations, if China accesses to this, that are run by the Communist Government of China because they own many of the corporations in their country. The People's Liberation Army owns those corporations. This is extraordinary. Six hundred corporations have access to this document, but no Member of Congress has access to this document, and yet this is the trade future. This is the 21st century trade agreement, we're told by this administration. Further, the chief negotiator for the United States has said it's his greater desire that China become part of this because then China would be bound by these rules. Oh, yeah, I heard that before. We used to vote annually on China's trade performance and we had a stick called ``most- favored-nation status.'' When we gave up that stick--I voted against it--we gave them permanent most-favored-nation status, then they could join the World Trade Organization. But they said, don't worry, now they'll have to follow the rules. Guess what? They don't. And if they get in this agreement, they won't follow the rules either. Kiss our economy good-bye if this secret agreement goes through.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Recently, the Chinese consul general sent a letter to the mayor of Corvallis, a small city in my district. The letter was followed up by personal visits by the vice consul and the deputy consul general. Now, we always welcome visitors, but under these circumstances, we have some concerns. They are trying to pressure the mayor of the City of Corvallis to compel a local businessman to remove a mural dedicated to free Tibet and Taiwan independence from his downtown building. It was characterized by the local newspaper as a shakedown because the original letter broadly hinted that it might be in Corvallis' best interest economically to cooperate with the request. I am shocked and appalled that apparently Chinese professional diplomats have failed to read the Constitution of the United States of America before traveling here to represent their country. This represents the basis of our representative democracy, our freedom of speech, and our rights, and it will not be bullied by China or any other overseas interest.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We could devote much more than an hour to Jerry Costello's career in Congress. I sat next to Jerry on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for more than two decades, and there is no more knowledgeable, dedicated advocate in the United States Congress--most recently on aviation issues, but across the board on infrastructure issues which underlie our economy and our productivity and our growth-- than Jerry Costello. His work has been phenomenal. He has done more than I could have imagined in his period of time. And we will miss him. I congratulate him upon a well and hard-earned retirement.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Yes, I am.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. DeFAZIO. This is the final amendment to the bill. It won't kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will be immediately amended and will proceed to final passage. It's a pretty simple amendment. It would create a tax break for the real job creators in America, which are small businesses and middle- income families. A middle-income person with a job or a small business and enough money to go out and invest and buy products made in America for his business--that's a key component of this--would be allowed an expensing. The Republican version of the bill would limit the expensing to small businesses to $100,000 a year for the purchases of new equipment made in America. If this amendment is adopted, those same small businesses would be allowed to expense up to $1 million to purchase products made in America, which would put people back to work. Now, I know we're going to hear of the millionaires and billionaires because this tax increase, or restoration of the Clinton era rates, would only apply to incomes over $1 million. So a millionaire still gets the break on the first $1 million. It's only on income over $1 million that would go to the Clinton era rates. They'll say they're the job creators and that it would depress job creation. Let's think back to the Clinton administration. We had a 39.6 percent top bracket on the millionaires and billionaires. We had 3.8 percent unemployment in the United States of America, and we paid down debt for the first time since the Eisenhower administration. I'd like to go back to those bad old days. Now, we've been doing the Bush tax cuts for 12 years. Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs from cutting taxes on people's incomes of over $1 million? They aren't creating those jobs. Let me give you two quick examples from my district, and they're typical. I have Palo Alto Software, a small business. They make software for business start-ups. We contacted them, and they said, Yes, we could invest way more both in new hardware, new software, and other things that would enhance our business than $100,000 if we were given this expensing privilege, and we would put more people back to work. Bulk Handling Systems, they make recycling systems in my district. They had the same answer: If you gave us a million dollars of expensing, we would spend every penny of that on products made in America and put people back to work. The bottom line is the Republicans want to limit these small businesses, these real job creators, to a $100,000 deduction when they could use a million dollars in expensing and put more people back to work, because their premise is that the millionaire, the person who got hundreds of millions or more in income, that having them not pay more taxes on their income over $1 million will create more jobs than the small business. I don't buy that. I don't think the American people buy that. There's no limit on what they can do with their huge tax breaks, their very expensive tax breaks. They can buy another vacation home in the Caribbean. They can buy a Lamborghini. Paris Hilton can go on a shopping spree in London or Paris. This bill limits the expensing and the purchase of equipment to products made in the United States of America. I want to see things made in this country again. I want to put Americans back to work, not people overseas. It's time that we admitted that we can't afford to continue the tax cuts over $1 million of income. It would also reduce the deficit over 10 years by $29 billion after we create jobs, after we give this expensing privilege to small businesses. The choice is yours. You can stick with those who have income over $1 million or you can side with small businesses and American workers. You decide. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. In 1989, I sponsored a bill, along with 11 other Democrats, to audit the Federal Reserve. The Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial saying we would destroy the American economy if we audited the Federal Reserve. Well, guess what? Eighteen years later, Wall Street destroyed the economy of the United States of America--Wall Street, the big banks--and then they were bailed out secretly by the Federal Reserve. We don't know how many trillions of dollars the Federal Reserve committed to them. We know their profits were billions, tens of billions on the bailout they got. So it's past time to audit the Federal Reserve. Today we'll take up a bill, finally, Ron Paul's bill, to audit the Reserve. I strongly support it. I also urge Members to support my bill, which would establish conflict-of-interest rules for the Federal Reserve and take the two- thirds of the Federal Reserve that is controlled by Wall Street banks, take those people off the board and put citizen representatives who represent the taxpayers and the consumers of the United States, not the big banks, on that board.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. On January 19, 2011, the Republicans voted to repeal ObamaCare. Thirty other times on the floor since then, they have voted to repeal ObamaCare, or part of ObamaCare. And today, for the 31st time, they will vote to repeal ObamaCare. How about doing something productive for the American people in terms of lowering health insurance and health care costs instead of your political theater here? The Supreme Court has ruled. Let's roll up our sleeves and improve what is the law of the land. I propose that today we should vote on my bipartisan amendment to take away the antitrust immunity of your friends, the insurance industry, so they can't collude to drive up prices, they can't collude to restrict coverage and divide up markets and make it more expensive for all Americans. The Consumers Union says this would mean a 10 to 25 percent drop in everybody's health insurance in this country. Let's do something real. Stop the political theater. Let's help the American people get affordable health care and health insurance.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Repeal and replace. If multiple failed attempts constitute delivery on a promise, the Republicans have delivered in spades. Today, the House of Representatives, for the 31st time in this session, will take up legislation to repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act, so-called ``ObamaCare.'' There have been 31 attempts tying up the floor of the House. One's enough. We already did it the first or second day we were here. The Senate is not going to take it up, but repetition is their mantra here for pretend legislation. They could take up real legislation. In fact, they had an opportunity as part of today's faux repeal to take up my legislation, which passed the last House of Representatives with massive bipartisan support, which would provide lower health care costs and health insurance costs for every American. That was real legislation. Why won't we do that? Maybe because it would upset the insurance industry, and they're awful generous at campaign time on that side of the aisle. Maybe. I don't know why. I offered to the Rules Committee an amendment to take away the antitrust immunity of the insurance industry. Yes, the insurance industry can and does get together behind closed doors and collude to drive up your rates, to exclude your coverage, and do a whole host of other things. They have been somewhat constrained by the Affordable Care Act in some of their collusive practices. Actually, the House version of the bill contains repeal of the antitrust amendment. The Senate, due to, as I understand it, one Democratic Senator, Ben Nelson, failed to include it in their version of the law. We had a separate vote later in the House. Over 400 Democrats and Republicans voted for it. It's common sense. They want to talk about free enterprise. It's not free enterprise when an industry can get together and collude to screw consumers. It's just not. That's not free enterprise. My amendment was not allowed. So we're just going to have another fake debate about repealing all of ObamaCare. Let's think about their vision here. Remember, it was repeal and replace. Where is the replace part? They're not talking about the replace part. That's strange. I guess they just want to go back to the way things were--status quo. That would be in the 10 years before ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, health insurance premiums were up 100 percent. That's an average of 10 percent a year. Let's go back to those good old days. Uninsured, up from 35 to 44 million, during those same 10 years. Let's go back to those good old days. Rescissions? Wow, the industry could and did refuse to renew your policy or take it away when you got sick, due to technicalities. That was called a rescission, a dirty little secret. That was outlawed by the Affordable Care Act. They want to bring that back. Give the industry the right, when you get sick with cancer, to take away your policy even though you have been paying your premium for 20 years at these inflated rates. Then, denial of coverage, of course, we'll bring back denial of coverage--any preexisting condition. Nope, sorry, we won't sell you a policy. Lifetime limits, they want to bring back all those good old things because they have no replacement. They haven't talked about replacement. All they're talking about is repeal. Let's put just a few statistics on who would not benefit under their proposal. In my district, 7,400 young Americans under age 26 are on their parents' policy. Nationwide, 3.1 million young Americans have insurance today who won't have it if their repeal bill goes through. Seniors, they are getting a 50 percent discount in the doughnut hole that never should have been created. I voted against their doughnut hole bill and the bill that subsidized the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry and didn't do a great job overnight helping out seniors with their pharmaceuticals. We could have done it for less, straight up, negotiate lower drug prices and offer a policy at cost. No, they wouldn't do that because the industry didn't like it. A pretty consistent theme here of sucking up to the insurance industry. Then 148,000 people in my district now get free preventive care under their insurance, 54 million people across the country. That goes away when their repeal bill goes through with no replacement. Children with preexisting conditions; 36,000 in my district have coverage now, 17 million nationwide. Tough luck, kids. You're back off the policy here under the Republican vision for the future of health insurance. Lifetime limits; 230,000 people in my district, 105 million people nationally. Most people don't know their policies have lifetime limits until they get a catastrophic illness and they start to read the fine print and the insurance company stops paying the bills and you go bankrupt. They want to bring back those good old days with repeal of this horrible ObamaCare. Then we have the business rebates and on and on. This is kind of a dyspeptic view of the world here. Let's go back to the dysfunctional system we had before. Is ObamaCare great? No. Can we fix it? Yes. Should we fix it? Yes. Should we adopt measures that would make it better, like taking away the antitrust exemption of the health insurance industry? Yes. Will they bring those issues up? No. They just want to pretend. It's pretend Congress day.