Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Colleagues, we are truly through the looking glass here into a strange world. The Gang of Six has supposedly met the President's requirements that we would have $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in revenues. But actually, they are cutting taxes. Now how does that work? Well, that only works inside the Washington, DC, Beltway. When you reduce revenues, you will increase revenues because you pretend that you wouldn't have had those revenues otherwise. It's a little bit complicated, isn't it? It is incredibly complicated. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors here. There is a simple way to deal with this crisis. We need to rein in spending. We also need to make investments that will put people to work. Now, the Republicans don't think the government can invest in anything that puts people to work, except they haven't noticed that we have an infrastructure that's falling apart. We have 20 percent unemployment in construction and related fields. If we were to begin to invest and rebuild America's infrastructure, all private sector jobs put those people to work. They start paying taxes, then part of the deficit goes away, and the money will be spent on something that will benefit this generation and future generations. But, no, they categorize all Federal spending the same. They just want to slash it all. So how about a plan that targets investment, putting people back to work that reduces spending appropriately across the government and actually pays for all of this with revenues? How could you do that? Simple. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Let all the Bush tax cuts expire. That's $4 trillion. It's not too complicated. It would take us back to those bad old Clinton years when rich people paid taxes. The ``job creators'' they call them. You can't make the job creators pay taxes; it will ruin the economy-- that's what they said when Clinton raised the taxes back in the nineties. Guess what, we ended up with 3.8 percent unemployment, and we actually balanced the budget and paid down debt. But, yes, the wealthy and all Americans carried a fair share of that burden. I would love to go back to those bad old days. We've been now, for a decade, living under the theory that reducing taxes creates jobs, especially reducing taxes on billionaires--you know, the job creators--creates jobs. It's not working too well, is it? No, it's really not working at all. But the Obama administration and the Gang of Six have apparently bought into this flim-flam. Let's continue the Bush tax cuts. Let's continue this stupid Social Security tax holiday that hasn't created a single job. Sure, there are a lot of American families that could use an extra $20 a week. But their spending an extra $20 a week does not create jobs. And now Obama wants to give employers $20 a week on each employee, saying, Well, they'll go out and hire millions if they get an extra $20 a week. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash, trillions of dollars of cash. They don't need more cash. And for $20 a week, they're not going to go out and hire anybody. So here's the plan: let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's $4 trillion. We've met the targets. We didn't cut Social Security. We didn't cut Medicare. We didn't cut veterans benefits. We didn't cut student financial aid. But we are $4 trillion ahead in this game. And then cancel the stupid Social Security tax holiday, but still borrow the money. We're borrowing the money to give people a Social Security tax holiday, borrowing the money to put back in the Social Security trust fund after we reduce the income. Stop reducing the income to Social Security, go back to the statutory rate of taxes, and guarantee the benefits to people. And borrow, instead, that $110 billion to rebuild America's infrastructure--$110 billion, that's about 4.7 million jobs. And that is not just construction jobs, but engineering jobs, small business jobs, manufacturing jobs all across the country. It will put America back to work, and that would reduce the deficit by about another 25 percent. So if we cancel the Bush tax cuts, $4 trillion. Okay, we're now at the President's ``big deal'' target which we're not going to meet under the Gang of Six or any of these other constructs around here. Cancel the Social Security tax holiday. Instead, borrow that money one more year, as the President has proposed, and invest in infrastructure. It will put millions to work. And then when those millions go to work, they'll be paying taxes, and that will reduce the deficit by another quarter. So we've solved three-quarters of the problem without killing programs essential to the American people and without cutting taxes on the job creators. The Gang of Six is proposing that billionaires should see their taxes cut by about 25 or 30 percent. That will help us balance the budget? It is time to get back to the real world and out of ``Alice in Wonderland.''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Hopefully, this will be an amendment which can be accepted. It's quite simple. And what I'm addressing is what The Washington Post has called the revolving door that spins at a dizzying pace here in Washington, D.C. The New York Times has said that Goldman Sachs is ``Government Sachs'' for all the employees who bounce back and forth between the Nation's Capital, the regulatory bodies, administrative branch, and its Manhattan office tower. All my amendment simply does is prevent potential conflicts of interest. Remember, a board here has been created in the original bill which can overturn any regulation, fairly unique among independent agencies if there is a board which can overturn the administrative procedures or rules that they adopt on the financial services industry. But in any case, that was in the original bill. This bill would reduce from a two-thirds majority to a 50 percent majority of this 10-member board. And my amendment just says if there's 10 people sitting on the board and it's potentially a close vote and this is something that's going to affect, say--not to pick on Goldman Sachs--but let's just say Goldman Sachs and a member of the board is a former employee of Goldman Sachs within the last 24 months, that member would have to sit out the vote. Plain and simple. It is a conflict-of-interest rule. I would hope that this would prove to be noncontroversial. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, obviously we've straightened out that misunderstanding, that the folks could serve. Now let me just harken back to something where I think many of my Republican colleagues agreed with me. I voted against the TARP bailout. Hank Paulson, as I said at the time, I think he was Goldman Sachs's executive standing in as Secretary of the Treasury and meting out justice to some of his competitors in terms of who lived and who died on Wall Street. So I would think there would be agreement on that side that for future conflicts of interest that these people would be restricted only on that one vote, only as it affects their former employer, only within the last 24 months. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I think there is a misunderstanding. They can serve on the board. It's just that if a proposal comes up that directly affects their previous employer and they have been on the board less than 2 years, they would have to sit out that particular vote. They can serve and vote on any and every other procedure, but just not on that particular thing. It's a very restrictive conflict of interest rule.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, yesterday the so-called ``Gang of Six'' on the Senate side--six very important Senators--unveiled sort of an outline about how to save $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Immediately it was embraced by President Obama. We really don't know much about it, nor does he, but he immediately embraced it. We know one thing about it. It contains something called a chained CPI. Okay. Well, who cares about a chained CPI? Well, seniors, they care a lot about a chained CPI; middle-income taxpayers, they care about it--they don't know it yet; veterans, and a whole host of other people. What is a chained CPI? Well, the pointy heads, like Mr. Furman who work for President Obama, say we're understating and overstating inflation with the way we adjust. There is something called substitution effect. So when prices of things go up, you buy something cheaper, so that means there isn't inflation. Well, no, wait a minute; the thing you used to buy is still more expensive and you're buying something else? But in the pointy-head economics world, this makes sense. So let's say how this would work for someone on Medicare: Okay, you can't afford your heart bypass, so instead you'll say to the doc, ``Hey, look, I can't afford the copay on the heart bypass. Why don't you do a hernia instead?'' That's substitution. In Mr. Furman's world, this makes sense. Now what this would do to seniors on Social Security, we already understate inflation. Seniors haven't gotten a COLA for the last 2 years. Tell me the price of prescription drugs and medical care hasn't gone up over the last 2 years. We need, in fact, a different measure for seniors, for Medicare, for our veterans and others who consume more health care and more essentials, which the CPI doesn't measure. It just measures junk that people buy. That's all it measures. And they're saying because people buy cheaper junk, we should change the CPI. That means the senior, by the time they reach 85 in this brave new world of the chained CPI, will get 100 bucks less a month in their Social Security--not too good. Veterans would see their benefits also be restrained and go down about the same amount. And then there is this other little impact they're not mentioning. If you're earning $20,000 a year, the tax brackets get adjusted every year. Well, they wouldn't get adjusted so much anymore under the chained CPI. So someone who earns $20,000 a year over 10 years would see their taxes go up 14 percent, but for the rich people, you earn $500,000 a year, you're already at the top; their taxes will only go up .3 percent, three-tenths of 1 percent. Fourteen percent for someone who earns $20,000 a year; .3 percent for someone who earns $500,000. And Obama has embraced this? What's happened down there at the White House? They're listening to these pointy-head economists, and they're going after programs that are important to the American people. All of this, all combined of this great ``Gang of Six,'' would save $4 trillion over 10 years. That is, seniors will pay more, working people will pay more, veterans will pay more--rich people, not so much--but it would save $4 trillion. Guess what? If we let all the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of next year-- all of them, and the stupid Social Security tax holiday--that would be $5 trillion over 10 years and we wouldn't have cut Social Security, we wouldn't have cut veterans benefits, we wouldn't have asked low-income and middle-income people to pay more in taxes. Now does that make more sense? I think so. Let's hope they rethink this down at the White House, and I hope the American people are watching closely.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This used to be a legislative body. I'm not quite sure what it is now. The way, traditionally, the House and the Senate resolve differences is the House and the Senate each pass a bill--most people learn this in their high school civics class. Then each side appoints conferees and they get together and hash through the differences. I've actually served on some of those conference committees. I've actually voted across the aisle on some provisions of bills in those conference committees. But not now. What they're saying here is, after they have worked out all the differences with the Senate and only in the way that their bill passed the House--that is, my way or the highway, or, my way or your plane's grounded, however you want to look at it--then they will appoint conferees to a meaningless conference on something that's already agreed to and then we'll come back and pass their bill. It doesn't work that way. It won't work that way. And this is just not a simple problem, because if the FAA has to close down all of its capital improvement programs--Friday night, very expensive, 4,000 people laid off--thousands of projects across the country that would put construction workers to work and suppliers to work won't happen. So this isn't a no-cost playing games kind of thing that they're doing here. And what's it all about? The bottom line is it's about whether or not labor should have the right to organize. That is what hung up the bill in the Senate before because they wanted to have a level playing field. We wanted to have a level playing field between providers of railroad and airline services and allow people to actually organize, to be represented. And, of course, Federal Express hated that, and their two Senators held up the last conference in the last Congress, plain and simple. Now they're on the same wavelength here. The Republicans here want to overrule the National Labor Relations Board and impose a rule for organizing that says you have to have a majority of people voting and a majority of the majority voting; i.e., if you apply the same rule that they want to the United States House of Representatives, not one Member of this House would have won their election. Not even some people who are in totally partisan districts, Democrat or Republican. No one would have won because no one got a majority of the majority of the votes. That's the rule they want to apply to labor. So if you want to organize a union, there's 100 people. First off, you've got to get 51 positive votes. Anybody who doesn't vote counts as a negative vote. So if we apply those same things, we would never have Federal elections in this country. You would never be able to elect anybody to anything. And they say, oh, that'll be fair for labor. That's what's hanging up this bill: their anti-labor fervor, their hatred of working people and their right to organize. It's absolutely obscene that they are going to do that and cost us more jobs by not having a capital improvement program.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I supported an honest, bipartisan balanced budget amendment in 1995. There is no balanced budget amendment in this legislation. There is a big dollop of legislative legerdemain and blackmail. It simply says that the Republicans will drive the country to default unless Congress later passes their right-wing version of a balanced budget amendment that requires an impossible two-thirds vote to close the most egregious tax loophole, the same loopholes that the gentleman from Wisconsin purports to want to close. With apologies to Lewis Carroll, ``There's no use trying,'' said Alice. ``One can't believe imaginary things.'' ``I dare say you haven't had much practice,'' said the Queen. ``When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I believed as many as six imaginary things before breakfast,'' or in this case, before dinner and cocktails at the Republican Club.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the gentleman that just preceded me said this would gut this bill. He is right, it would gut this bill which deserves to be gutted. This bill would take us back to pre-Clean Water Act standards. He says, oh, the States, if they have standards, shouldn't be bothered by the EPA. Well, this bill says if a State has adopted standards on paper, but they choose not to enforce them and they are out of compliance, the EPA can take no action. It further says that if we discover a new harmful pollutant, as we did recently when we upgraded the standards for arsenic, most of us don't want our kids drinking arsenic in the water. The EPA cannot enforce new national standards if we discover a new dangerous pollutant unless the State agrees. It's optional; it's up to the State. And then, of course, if you happen to be a State downstream from a State that is choosing to kind of stick it to its own people by not adopting the highest standards, or not even enforcing their existing standards, you are downstream, you don't have any choice. You have no recourse. This bill is absurd in terms of the fact that it is just designed to totally gut the Clean Water Act and turn back the clock to the good old days when we had rivers that burned.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, we are in the 10th year of the Bush tax cuts and the third year of the Obama tax cuts. Taxes today are at the lowest percentage of our national economy since 1950; and, of course, that preexists a few things like Medicare, homeland security, massive spending on wars overseas, et cetera. Yet last Friday, with this very, very light tax burden, we had the official unemployment numbers. They were horrible. But guess what. The reality is worse than the numbers. There are about 20 million people, not 16 million people, unemployed, looking for work, or underemployed. So I guess all we need to do is cut taxes more and cut spending and we will have an economic boom. Yes, we will have a boom, like the boom of an imploding economy. Just like the last 10 years, the worst job creation since the Great Depression under this theory that tax cuts solve every problem. Now the President's response on Friday was, not surprisingly, continue tax cuts. The new one he has adopted is the Social Security tax holiday. But don't worry, we will make Social Security whole. If we cut their income, we've got to make the trust fund whole. We'll borrow $110 billion from China. We'll put it into the Social Security trust fund and everybody will get $15 or $20 a week, and that'll solve the problems of this economy. Of course, it doesn't do much for the people who aren't working, and it's not going to create jobs. That's his big solution. Number two solution: more job-killing free trade agreements. Oh, that's great. Patent reform. Yeah, maybe some day. And then at the very end, oh, we should have a little bitty infrastructure bank. Okay. Great. Now, the Republicans on Thursday, they preceded all this and one- upped him. They proposed that the United States of America, with crumbling highways, falling-down bridges, and obsolete transit systems, cut investment in infrastructure by 35 percent. So the construction industry that has today 16 percent unemployment, under the Republican plan, 25 percent unemployment. That's great. That's going to work, too. Oh, yes, and more tax cuts. You know, we lack the will around here to address our Nation's greatest problems, not the means. Chronic unemployment is the greatest problem in this country. If we solve chronic unemployment, a quarter of the deficit goes away because those people aren't collecting unemployment benefits, food stamps and other things they need just to survive, and they are working and paying taxes. Now, how about canceling some of these stupid tax cuts, particularly the Social Security tax holiday? Let's not borrow $110 billion from China for people to dribble way in $20-a-week payments. Let's take that $110 billion and build things in America with American workers and buy American requirements. We could put 4 million or 5 million people to work. Let's cancel the tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 a year--the job creators--who are pretty undertaxed right now and who have record savings and wealth. If they contributed a little bit, that would be about another 1 million jobs if we put that $23 billion a year into investments in infrastructure. These aren't just construction jobs. They're engineering jobs; they're manufacturing jobs; they're small business suppliers. We need an investment-driven recovery. For too long, we've been trying under both Bush and under Obama to have a borrowed money, consumption-driven recovery. Ain't going to work. Not good long term. Instead of indebting our kids and giving them nothing but current consumption, let's have something that's investment-driven that will provide benefits for generations to come with a 21st century infrastructure for this country.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. My colleagues, in 1990 Congress passed a law that required that all Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, must have auditable financial statements every year. Since that time, the Department of Defense has spent $10 trillion--$10,000 billion--and yet no audit has been conducted. In fact, there are numerous problems with accounting at DOD, and their financial management has been rated as ``high risk'' by the Government Accountability Office. Unfortunately, the Pentagon, being incapable of being audited, sought an exemption from audits. So in 2005, Congress passed a ban on completing an audit. It was contained in section 376 of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act. In 2009, Congress got tough and they said, ``Look, we've exempted you from audits. But let's have a goal--not a mandate--a goal of you doing an audit by 2017. Yet last September in a hearing Pentagon officials stated that meeting a deadline of 2017 for having their first ever audit of their books, and they will spend $4 trillion between now and 2017 without an audit, they said they would need more money, more money to be auditable. That's chutzpah. That's incredible. So what we're attempting to do here tonight is to say that we're going to suspend the exemption. The DOD, it's time for them to get their books in order. There is nothing more important for our men and women in uniform than to know that every dollar, every precious tax dollar is being spent properly to give them the tools they need to defend our Nation. And the taxpayers of this country, concerned about our massive deficit and the concerns that are being expressed here in these deficit and debt talks downtown, the taxpayers need to know that we're not wasting money in the single largest annual account of the Federal budget which is not audited, the expenditures of the Pentagon. In fiscal year 2010, half of DOD's contract awards were not competed. That's half. In 140 billion of them, there was no competition at all, and in 48 billion, there was one, one competitor. So we have a lot of work to do here. In 2000, the Pentagon Inspector General found that of $7.6 trillion in accounting errors of entries, $2.3 trillion ``were not supported by adequate audit trails or sufficient evidence to determine their validity.'' We don't know where that $2.3 trillion went. Now, come on. It's time to stop treating them with kid gloves. The Pentagon's a tough institution, the toughest Department of Defense in the world. And it's time for them to own up here and audit their books and trace every dollar. It's a new era. So I urge my colleagues to support this by defunding this special exemption. Then the Pentagon will be subject to audit over the next year, which could provide tremendous benefits to our men and women in uniform and certainly tremendous savings for the American taxpayers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life and legacy of Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist Brian Lanker. Ten days after being diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer, Brian passed away with his family at his side. Brian was a remarkable photographer and an even better friend. In 1970, Brian shot a groundbreaking feature on the Lamaze technique for natural child birth, which at the time was unusual. Brian followed expectant mother Lynda Coburn through the birth of her second child. The feature culminated with a powerful photo of the ecstatic mother with her newborn daughter Jacki just after birth. This iconic photo earned Brian the 1973 Pulitzer Prize. But Brian won an even greater prize. He found Lynda, his soul mate. Brian and Lynda were married in 1974 and together they built a loving family with their children Julie, Jacki, and Dustin. In 1974, Brian and his family moved to Eugene, Oregon to take a position with the Register Guard. Brian's passion for the craft was unmatched and his incredible work at the Register-Guard earned him a Newspaper Photographer of the Year award. Brian left the Register-Guard to work as a freelance photographer. His breathtaking photographs have been featured in national publications like National Geographic, Life Magazine, and Sports Illustrated. He collaborated with poet Maya Angelou on two books: ``I Dream a World,'' his portraits of black women of achievement; and ``Shall We Dance,'' a photographic documentary of dance in America. The books were Brian's proudest achievements. The book ``I Dream a World'' set attendance records at Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. Now in its 14th printing, the book shared with readers the stories of these incredible women who forever changed the course of history. Brian attributed the book's success not to his work, but rather to the women. But Brian had an uncanny ability to capture an image that revealed these stories. And throughout his career, his work moved people. Two of Brian's children, who had separately planned weddings for later in the year, chose to get married at Brian's bedside so he could share in their celebration. He passed away not long after. He is survived by Lynda Lanker and their children Julie, Jacki, and Dustin. Carl Davaz, who is the deputy managing director of photography at the Register-Guard, reflected on his final visit with Brian in a New York Times remembrance piece. At that visit Brian simply told Carl, ``There's just so much left to do.'' I agree. Brian--there was just so much left for you to do. You will forever be missed. Thank you for sharing your gift with us.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Daniel Rodriguez on the occasion of his retirement after 26 years of service as executive director for the University of Oregon Alumni Association. The University of Oregon is a world class institution renowned for its groundbreaking research, and is an important keystone that unites Oregonians both at home and throughout the world. Since coming to the University of Oregon in 1988, Dan Rodriguez has played a pivotal role in the rebirth of the alumni association. He created the alumni membership program that has topped 20,000 members worldwide and worked diligently to put the association on sound financial footing. He also led the effort to increase the number of active alumni chapters to 22 across the country. But perhaps Dan's greatest accomplishment is the construction of the new Ford Alumni Center. While Dan will be the first to say this Center came about due to the tireless effort of many committed individuals, there is no question he has been a driving force for the project since its inception. Dan grew up in Sunnyvale, CA, and is a graduate of Arizona State University. While he is a Sun Devil by pedigree, it is difficult to think of a more devoted and true Oregon Duck than Dan. He has spent untold hours promoting the University and the alumni association. He has also dedicated himself to the University's hometown community of Eugene, Oregon, where he has served on the Eugene Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, the Rotary Club, and in several capacities with the American Lung Association of Oregon. Dan has served four University presidents, seven athletic directors, and acted as a mentor to hundreds of UO students teaching the importance of leadership and volunteerism as part of campus life. He leaves a team of 12 employees and a board of directors who will miss his devotion and dedication to the association and the university it serves. On the occasion of his last day at the University of Oregon, I wish to personally thank Mr. Rodriguez for his service. He will certainly be missed. Go Ducks!

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and legacy of Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist Brian Lanker. Brian died on March 13th, ten days after being diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer. Brian was a remarkable photographer. He was also a good friend. He began his career at the Topeka Capital-Journal in 1970--a paper nationally renowned for excellence in photojournalism. While at the paper, he shot a series on natural childbirth using the Lamaze method, which was not common at that time. The series culminated in a photo of Lynda (then Coburn) Lanker, Brian's future wife, giving birth to her son, Dustin. This ebullient photograph earned Brian the 1973 Pulitzer Prize. Shortly after that achievement, Brian moved to Eugene, Oregon, to take a position as the director of graphics for the Register Guard. Under Brian's direction, photos became a significant part of the news story. He raised the paper's standard for photojournalism to new heights, and he was awarded two Newspaper Photographer of the Year awards for his effort. In a remembrance, Carl Davaz, the paper's then deputy managing editor, told David Dunlap that Brian always thought first about the reader when taking pictures, and used his talents to bring words-and-pictures together. Brian became a freelance photographer after he left the Register Guard in 1982. He took breathtaking photographs for distinguished publications including LIFE Magazine, Sports Illustrated, and National Geographic. He was sought out for his photographic instincts and ability to capture single moments that told entire stories. His proudest works, however, came when he collaborated with poet Maya Angelou on two books: ``I Dream a World,'' his portraits of black women of achievement; and ``Shall We Dance,'' a photographic documentary of dance in America. The debut showing for ``I Dream a World'' set attendance records at Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. It is now in its 14th printing, which made Brian particularly proud because it meant the stories of these distinguished women were being shared. At the end of Mr. Dunlap's remembrance, he wrote about Carl Davaz' final visit with Brian. Brian simply told Carl, ``There's just so much left to do.'' Just before Brian died, two of his children, who had separately planned weddings for later in the year, chose to get married at Brian's bedside so he could share in their celebration. He died soon thereafter. Brian is survived by Lynda Lanker, a recognized artist in her own right, and their children Julie Coburn, Jacki Coburn, and Dustin Lanker. For my part, I agree with you, Brian--there was just so much left for you to do. You are deeply missed.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The United States' objective in Afghanistan was to root out, destroy, al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and their Taliban hosts. That job is done. Afghanistan has been superseded now as a haven for terrorists by tribal areas in Pakistan, Yemen, and Sudan. The inter- and intratribal disputes in Afghanistan are rooted in ancient history, and 12 to 36 more months of a large U.S. troop footprint is not going to resolve centuries-old conflicts among the Afghan tribes. There never has been, there never will be, a strong central government in Afghanistan. So I disagree with the President's plan for a snail-pace partial drawdown of U.S. troops over the next few years. We should do it much more quickly and leave only a residual force to prevent a terrorist takeover. There were only a few thousand troops there when we drove out the Taliban and when we pursued Osama bin Laden. Unfortunately, we lost an early opportunity to capture and kill him because of mistakes by then-Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But that being done, the President did say something last night with which I strongly agree. He said, America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home. I couldn't agree more. I've been trying to do that for the last 2\1/2\ years but running into roadblocks down at the White House when I try and rebuild the Nation's transportation infrastructure. Now, let's just think for a minute. We're borrowing and spending $120 billion a year in Afghanistan, both to support our troops and to engage in nation-building, building them schools, building them highways, building them bridges, while our own schools, our own highways, our own bridges are crumbling and collapsing; $120 billion borrowed and spent in Afghanistan, what could we do with that here at home? We could begin to address the backlog of 150,000 bridges on our national highway system that need repair or replacement; the $70 billion backlog on our transit systems for basic capital maintenance, let alone new investment in new transit systems to more efficiently transport our people; to deal with the 40 percent of the pavement on the national highway system that's substandard; to deal with congestion in our major cities and our ports; to move freight and Americans more effectively. And in addressing that with $120 billion that we're borrowing and spending in Afghanistan today and instead spending that money here at home, we could put over 3 million to work, not just construction workers. People say to me, well, Congressman, I don't work in construction. It's not just construction. We have the strongest buy- America requirement in transportation of any part of the government. That means when you buy a transit vehicle, it's going to be made in America. That's manufacturing, that's software, that's engineering, design. It goes all across the economy. It's small business suppliers, minority suppliers under the laws. We could put millions to work and stimulate our economy if that money were spent here. Last week, I confronted the President's deputy economic adviser, Mr. Furman, over these issues; and he did admit that instead of more tax cuts, which isn't putting anybody back to work--that's their one nostrum which seems to have been adopted by the Obama administration-- hasn't worked for a decade, but if we cut them even more, that will then. It doesn't work. Investment works. We know it works. Let's invest. But the President's deputy economic adviser said we can't do that, we can't get the money to do that, but we can do a Social Security tax holiday and borrow $200 billion more and not put people back to work. Come on. Let's follow up on what the President said last night. Let's get serious about it, and let's make the investments here. America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home and put our people back to work and ensure prosperity for future generations.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You are either for States' rights or you're not. It seems on the other side of the aisle, when it is convenient to their agenda, they are for States' rights. But when it is not convenient to their agenda or their generous campaign contributors, the oil and gas industry, they are not for States' rights. My State voted, the legislature, just last year for a 10-year moratorium on their lands as an expression of interest not only to ban the leasing of the lands within the coastal waters, but beyond that. We are serious about protecting our fisheries, we are serious about our very profitable tourism industry, and, yes, we are serious about wind and wave development. The gentleman made no sense. He said somehow this would preclude wind and wave development. Not at all. You don't need a clean air permit for something that doesn't potentially pollute the air. So at this point I would just suggest that let's be consistent. If the State of Alaska wishes to push ahead, the gentleman from Alaska has the bill before us. The Republican Party controls the House. Great. He also had a rule that people from local districts and local States, the gentleman from Alaska, get to have their prerogative. This is our prerogative, representing the people of the State of Oregon.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Last December, with one vote, Congress voted to add $400 billion to this year's deficit by extending all the Bush tax cuts and adding a new Social Security tax holiday. The premise was this would put America back to work. Well, guess what? It hasn't worked--borrowed money, a consumption-driven economy is anemic at best. Now the Republicans and President Obama want to double down. They want to expand and continue the Social Security tax holiday at a cost of 220 billion borrowed dollars. How about instead of more tax cuts, instead of reducing investment in infrastructure, how about $220 billion of real investment in our crumbling national infrastructure? We could put 7.5 million people to work, not just in construction, in engineering, in small businesses and manufacturing, and add $1.5 trillion to our economy. The choice is clear: more failed policies of the past or investment in the future.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. We've seen some pretty miserable employment numbers recently, but the real unemployment rate is actually about twice what you read in the paper. It's closer to 18 percent, with discouraged workers and people who are underemployed. Now, can we look to Washington for solutions? On the Republican side of the aisle, the answer is simple: more tax cuts. That will put people back to work. Let's see, for 10 years now, we've been living under the Bush tax cuts; and we've had the worst job creation for the last decade since World War II. Now, it doesn't seem to be working too well, but it is all based on the theory of trickle-down. But I think at this point, the American people have been trickled on so much, particularly those who are unemployed and looking for work, that they'd like an umbrella and they'd like a little shelter from these nonsensical policies. Can we look to the White House? Well, unfortunately, things aren't a lot better down at the White House. They went along with the Republicans on quite a bit of these tax cuts. Forty percent of the so- called stimulus was tax cuts. Seven percent--one-sixth of that--was invested in infrastructure. And guess what, that investment at one- sixth the cost of the tax cuts put a heck of a lot more people to work, investment in building things and in the future of our country, as opposed to debt-driven consumption-driven tax cuts. Last December, the President caved, went along with extending the Bush tax cuts, and we've still got miserable job creation. Oh, wow, that's a surprise. Now they've floated a balloon. The White House has a great new idea. Let's continue the Social Security tax holiday. That was added to the Bush tax cuts in December. That's created a lot of jobs. Sure, working families can use an extra $15 a week. But what about the 20 million people who are unemployed? They don't get any of that. And how much of that $15 a week, how many jobs does that create? But the White House thinks we should extend that, and maybe we should give it on the employer side too. So here's the way it will work: we don't have the money. We're going to cut the Social Security tax again. We have to make the trust fund whole. So we'll borrow $200 billion from China that we'll put into the Social Security trust fund, and that's going to put America back to work. What a great idea. Wait a minute, how about we take that $200 billion the White House wants to borrow to extend the Social Security tax holiday and we invest it into real things, the Nation's crumbling infrastructure? We have 20 percent unemployment in the construction industry, and it isn't just construction workers who go to work when we rebuild our infrastructure. We have Buy America requirements. They're all American jobs, and everything that goes into every job is made in America. If it's a transit system, you've got engineers; you've got software; you've got high-tech manufacturing. If it's a bridge, you've got steel; you've got concrete; you've got engineering design; you've got construction workers. If it's a highway, the same thing. Take that money, take that $200 billion they want to borrow and give a Social Security tax holiday. Instead, invest it in the future of this country and things that will serve our country for 100 years, make us more productive, more efficient, and you can look your grandkids in the eye 15, 20, 30 years from today and say, Yes, that's right, we borrowed that money; and you are still paying the bill. If you give it for a Social Security tax holiday, he is going to say, Granddad, what did you spend that $17 on that week? Because I am paying the bill. But how about if Granddad can say, We built that bridge; we built that transit system; we rebuilt our national transportation system. We put millions to work and, guess what, that system will serve you for another 100 years. That's an investment versus consumption. Everybody around here is just into consumption. We need to invest in the future of our country.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thought you usually did.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Actually, I have experience with this. When I was a county commissioner and we were on some tough times, we said, we're not going to continue this program. We dropped our share. Heard all the same myths. Oh, my God, the deprivation. We're going to lose all our sheep; we're going to lose all our cattle. We're going to have these horrible things happen. Know what happened? Nothing. They took care of the problem themselves. A coyote comes on your property in proximity to your property, you can kill it. That's a myth. You can kill it. Sure you can. There's this limited exemption regarding endangered species which is apparently a problem in some States, not in ours. They just killed some wolves in eastern Oregon because they were concerned that they might have the caused predation. Now, let's talk about this subsidy. It's unnecessary. It's ineffective. And it's a taxpayer subsidy. I mean, are you guys serious about cutting the deficit or not? Why give private ranching interests subsidies to do something they should do themselves? There is no good reason to do that. Now you're going to say, oh, we're worried about aircraft. Well, no. We're only cutting in one budget, which is $13.7 million, which is the Livestock Protection Program. Now, of course he said it's incredibly cost effective. It's been about $1 billion that's been spent on this program during its duration by the Federal Government, $1 billion. And during that time--because they're not following biology or any sensibility--the coyote population has tripled despite the $1 billion. In Colorado, they fly around in planes and shoot coyotes; it costs about 100 bucks a coyote. There are more coyotes now than there were when Animal Damage Control started these programs. They don't understand pack behavior and what causes dispersion. They've got coyotes now in parts of the country where they haven't seen them for 100 years. It's a really effective program; it's working really well. It has nothing to do with geese or any of that. That's another part of Wildlife Services. That is not the subsidy to private ranching interests to conduct lethal predator control. And then they do some other great things. They have these nifty little devices, they're called M-44s. It's basically a baited cyanide shot shell. Now, it has sickened some humans--hasn't killed any yet. Has killed quite a number of domestic animals. Sooner or later it's going to kill a kid. Some kid is going to be pulling on that little string saying, gee, I wonder what this does--BAM, cyanide shot shell. Now, that's really discriminate. That's really effective. That's the same program that has helped triple the population of coyotes out there over the last 80 years since these programs have existed. So you can come up with all sorts of whoo-ha and say, oh, it has to do with Captain Sullenberger. No. It has to do with we can't shoot these things ourselves, no. I mean, just face it, if you want to subsidize ranching interests, just be honest about it and say we want to borrow $11 million in the name of the American taxpayers and give it to private ranching interests. That's it, plain and simple, yes or no. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chair, aren't you supposed to alternate sides? That was Republican time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman who preceded me in the well talked about unemployment and creating jobs. I may not have agreed with his particular nostrums, but at least that's one Republican who's talking about creating jobs. Unfortunately, the Republican majority, in the last 6 months of leadership in the House, has brought forward no bills to put Americans back to work except they say do more of the same. What? Yes, more of the same. The last decade, George Bush dramatically cut taxes--twice--decreased regulations under the theory that that would create jobs. Unfortunately, the facts are in. We had the worst job creation post World War II in the last decade under George Bush and doubled the deficit and debt while doing it. It didn't create jobs. Trickle down economics doesn't work. It didn't work in the Reagan era. It didn't work then. Compare that to the Clinton era. We raised taxes, yes, particularly on rich people and big corporations. We actually balanced the budget, we paid down debt, we had 3.8 percent unemployment, and real incomes went up for the middle class. I'd love to go back to those ``bad old days,'' but no, it's the Bush policies that will work, we've just got to do more of them. Reduce spending even more. Government can't do anything to create jobs, they say. Well, what about investing in the Nation's infrastructure? Who built the national highway system? Who built the bridges? Who built the transit systems in this country? Who helped build the rail systems? Who has maintained our ports and waterways? The Federal Government--sometimes in partnership with States or local government or the private sector. But those investments pay off. And what do the Republicans want to do? In the face of 150,000 bridges on the national highway system that are about to--or in the not-too-distant future--have the same fate as the bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota that is collapsed, they need either total replacement or repair 150,000 bridges; 40 percent of the pavement on the national highway system; $60 billion backlog on our transit systems. They want to cut Federal investment in transit. And they say if we give that money to rich people and to the corporations--who are sitting on $2 trillion worth of cash--they'll take care of the problem. Oh, really? What are you going to do, toll 150,000 bridges across the country in order to induce the private sector to come in and rebuild them? Are you going to toll the existing interstate in order to bring it up to a decent system of good repair? And transit systems, they all lose money. Now some on the Republican side say, well, we should just do away with transit systems, we don't need those things. Come on, let's have a little bit of common sense here. You want to talk about saving fuel? Invest in transit. You want to talk about creating jobs? Invest in infrastructure. We have the strongest Buy American requirements in transportation and infrastructure as any program of the Federal Government. We create more jobs per billion dollars than anything else. Way more than the Defense Department--where they want to shower all their funds--can be created in transportation. You can put Americans to work; not only construction workers who have horrible unemployment, not only steel workers for the bridges, not only people who maintain these systems, but engineers, software engineers, people who make tires, people who make rail cars, people who make streetcars. We are making street cars in America for the first time in 70 years in Oregon due to one of those horrible earmarks they want to ban. We were buying them overseas. Now we are making them in America. Is that bad? They seem to think it is, and they want to decrease investment in these sorts of things that are proven job generators. Now, I have to give the Obama administration a big fat D-minus on this same issue. The so-called stimulus, which they rightly criticize, which I voted against, $800 million, 40 percent of it was Bush tax cuts, which didn't work for Bush and didn't work for Obama. Now all the Obama administration is talking about is more tax cuts. Extending the payroll tax holiday on Social Security, that will put America back to work. Give me a break. These things haven't worked. We need real investment. If you borrow money to build a bridge that lasts 100 years, at least you can look your kids and grandkids straight in the eye when they say, what did you do with all that money, because I am still paying the bills 30 years from now. And you can say, we built that bridge you drove over to go to work. We rebuilt that transit system that you took to work today. We made America more competitive in the international economy with those investments. You have got to start distinguishing between investments and wasteful spending. If you want to talk about cut-and-spend, then let's talk about it. Subsidies to people to not grow things, $5 billion a year; another $15 billion a year in agriculture subsidies to grow surplus crops? Don't want to touch that one. Tax loopholes, giveaways to the oil companies, let's cut that. No, we can't cut the tax subsidies to the oil companies. You know, common guys, let's get real here. Let's invest in America, in the American people, and put people back to work. We need a real program, and you people have offered us nothing.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I move to strike the last word.