Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

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

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. At this point, Mr. Chair, I would like to bring to the attention of the Congress that we're about to eliminate a program which is incredibly cost effective, which truly supports a growing proportion of profitable small family farms in America, which is to help with research and transition to organic production. In the most recent statistics, the organic sector of the agriculture production in this country was nearly $27 billion. That's up from $4 billion in 1997. There are over 14,500 family farms engaged in organic agriculture, and they have been experiencing dramatic increases. Now you might say, well, why would we want to continue to research and help them. Well, we're spending a tremendous amount of money in research and subsidies on other crops which are obviously totally developed and do not need assistance. In this case, we're talking about many people who own struggling family farms who want to convert. They're interested in moving to organics because they know there is potential for higher profitability with those products with dramatically increasing demand. In fact, the USDA says that the average for small--these are truly small farms, not what some people consider small farms--organic farms was $46,000 last year and for all farms, small farms, was $26,000. So there are many people who are engaged in truly small farming activities who want to stay on the land, don't want to parcel it up, don't want to sell to the developers. They want to continue to live there, raise their kids there, but they're having trouble making ends meet. And this is an opportunity for many folks, an opportunity both for consumers who are demanding organically produced produce and for producers, and I think it would be very shortsighted to zero out this program at this point in time. So I'm asking that we take a very small percentage of the APHIS budget, well less than 1 percent, and at least on a temporary measure restore the cuts to the transitional and organic research portion of the budget in the hope that we can reach agreement on a sustainable way to fund this program in the future and look at more equitable distribution of funds, both for research and subsidies and other things that go on in the Department of Agriculture. The amount of money we're asking for here at $5 million is a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the amount of money that we're spending on subsidies for five crops in eight States to pay people not to grow things. Now, I think to actually help people to grow things, to grow healthy produce, to supply the American people, to be able to live on their farms, support their families and pass on the farms to the next generation, that this would be a very, very wise investment, and I wish that this had not been chosen for a cut. I'm hopeful that my colleagues will see the wisdom in restoring this cut and then looking in the next farm bill or in the next appropriation to an equitable division of these funds.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Only inside the Washington, D.C. beltway could we be having this debate. The taxpayers are demanding that we tighten our belts and save money. The Pentagon says, let's go ahead with the single engine procurement, which resulted from a competition, which is a quality engine. Now, if that engine has problems, someone at the Pentagon should be fired. If there was problems with the original competition, a lot of people at the Pentagon should be fired. And maybe we ought to look at overhauling the procurement process. But to say now, well, we've got a good engine. They want a competition. But we've got another company that really wishes it had won the competition but didn't win the competition, and now they still want to build an engine and the taxpayers should subsidize it, Which is what this is all about. It only costs $2.9 billion for them to develop an alternative engine. Only $2.9 billion. Inside the Washington, D.C. beltway that's not real money. I guess the joke is, inside the Washington, D.C. beltway, how many jet engines does it take to fly a single engine fighter? Now, most Americans would think, well, that's probably not a joke, and it would be one. Right? No. It's two. Now, if we need two on the ground, maybe we need two in the air. Maybe we ought to redesign the plane and put two engines in the tail, one from one company and one from the other. In case one flames out, we've got one left at least to bring the plane back. I mean, if we're so worried about reliability, maybe we just ought to start all over again. Come on, guys. Let's not be ridiculous here. Two supply chains. Two sets of mechanics. Two sets of spare parts. Oh, wait a minute. This plane broke down over here and the mechanic there and the spare parts are for the other one. Oh, we've got to keep them sorted out by which engine they've got, where they are, where they'll fly in the world, what mission they'll go on, which mechanics we send, which supply chain we send for it. No, this is not going to save money. This is not going to save money. If you did a crappy procurement, then fix it; but don't say let's do another procurement in the way the Pentagon always does things, which will inevitably be another cost overrun procurement. So it won't only cost $2.9 billion to develop the alternative engine. We'll hear 6 months from now, a year from now, Oh, well, we thought we could develop an alternative for 2.9, but it will be 10. But don't worry. It will still bring down the overall cost. Support this amendment. Support common sense. Stand up for the taxpayers, and stand up for the military which says we don't need a second engine for this plane. They are the guys who fly them.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for the generous grant of time. So here we are trying to fill up space while America is in crisis. Now, why do I say that? One of the most important and ongoing obligations of the United States Congress is oversight. We don't need to pass a meaningless hortatory resolution to tell the committees to do oversight. I've observed a number of the Republican-led committees are already vigorously engaged in oversight. I held dozens of hearings in oversight of the bureaucracy and programs when I chaired the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. That's something we have not done enough of and we should do more of. But spending 10 hours on the floor instead of a few hours marking up some bills that could create jobs in America is a waste of time and meaningless. We had two commissions that were named when the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House in the Bush era. Both of those commissions, Republican-led, Republican-authorized commissions, came to the same conclusion: We are dramatically underinvesting in our Nation's infrastructure. We are becoming Third World: 150,000 bridges on the National Highway System need substantial repair or replacement; 40 percent of the pavement on the National Highway System fair or poor, causing blowouts, axles broken, accidents. It's a mess. Talk to anybody. A $60 billion backlog on capital investment in our transit systems. And you know what? When we make these investments, there's a great thing about it. We have strict buy America requirements--buy America requirements I intended to make more strict, and I hope the Republicans will now that they're in charge, when we reauthorize the Surface Transportation Bill. You get a phenomenal multiplier of jobs out of those investments. Instead of the stupid stimulus bill we passed, if we had taken one- fifth of the money that went into that stimulus bill and we had invested it in surface transportation in this country, we could have created another couple of million jobs a year; because they aren't just jobs of people out there building the bridges and the highways and those sorts of things; they're the people that make the things that we use to build the bridges and highways--the steel industry. They're the people who make the tires for the buses or the engines for the buses or the streetcars that we now make in Oregon again, made in America for the first time in 70 years. A huge multiplier effect. Inadequate. So what they said is, the amount of money we're currently investing won't even keep the Eisenhower-era system up. Now the Republicans are refusing to look at enhanced investment in transportation infrastructure, and we haven't even begun a discussion of authorizing that legislation. As for the Federal Aviation Administration, we are wasting billions of gallons of fuel and people's time in the air because we don't have an adequate aviation system in terms of air traffic control and the tools that our controllers need. They're focused on the controllers: Oh, those controllers, they just earn too much money. They're working with 1950's equipment. You can't get vacuum tubes anymore. Let's focus on the things people need in order to do the jobs more efficiently, to get our planes where they're going as safely as we do today but more efficiently. Let's stop the congestion in the skies. Allow our airports to expand. Get the jobs out of construction. Let's talk about those things. Today, the Democrats introduced a bill, our first major bill, H.R. 11, to authorize more Buy America Bonds. Now, this doesn't cost the Federal Government anything in the end. What we are trying to do is help the local jurisdictions, the States, and others who are strapped now--their bonding authority is either tapped out or they don't have good credit because of other problems--to do needed projects and give it to them at interest rates they can afford. Yeah, there's a little subsidy there in the interest rate--but guess what? With the jobs we generate, we're going to get more than that back in the taxes. The best way we can deal with the deficit in this country is to put Americans back to work. Thirty to 40 percent of our deficit could be dealt with if we had full employment and reasonable rates of taxation like in the Clinton era. But no. The Republicans want to sit here and pretend they really care about these things. We're going to get rid of those job-killing regulations and we'll start to do something new--oversight. Well, good as to the oversight. You're already authorized to do oversight. Don't pretend you aren't, and don't pretend that this meaningless resolution is going to make any difference at all. Why are we wasting this time? Why are we wasting this time? Because you want to put on a show. Well, good for you. You're putting on a show. You're in charge. You can put on a show whenever you want, but someday, you're going to come to account for it, and if you haven't delivered on the jobs, and you're not doing much so far that I've seen to produce any jobs. You can pretend this is about jobs.

Mr. DeFAZIO. What this is really about is your day-in, day-out agenda, which is big business. This isn't about independent truckdrivers who struggle to make a living. This isn't about small, independent businesses that go out and get contracts through the States with Federal money to build highway projects and some of the paperwork they have to deal with. I'm all with you on that stuff. Let's streamline that stuff. Let's get rid of that junk. Just today, I had some people in my office who I've helped to get some money to reopen a rail line that was closed by some hedge fund in my district that bought it out, and they're being hung up on getting a Federal grant, which I helped them get one of those horrible earmarks we get around here to further enhance that short rail line, by some paperwork at the Fish and Wildlife. It just happened that the regional guy from the Feds for Fish and Wildlife was there in my office to talk to another staffer. I put them together, and we solved the issue in a couple of minutes, but it shouldn't have happened. We can streamline the paperwork. We can do that in a transportation bill and deal with those sorts of things. So if you want to do real stuff to help real people, small business, Main Street, I'm with you, but not if this is yet another ruse to either engage in some sort of political, you know, pursuit of the administration, or if it's just something else to help your big business allies or something else to coddle Wall Street. Get rid of those burdensome regulations on Wall Street. Why, they can regulate themselves. Look what a great job they did over the last 10 years in regulating themselves. Well, they did crater the U.S. economy and the world economy and cost a few million people their jobs, but they would never do anything that would jeopardize our country. Those burdensome regulations on Wall Street. Those burdensome regulations on BP. My God, how can we have those burdensome regulations on those big oil companies? Just free them up. They'll drill safely anywhere and everywhere, and there will never be a problem. We had crappy regulation. Let's fix that. But we need regulations to avoid abuses. Don't pretend that we don't. Don't pretend that big business won't choose to abuse the privilege if we don't regulate them properly and smartly. Do you want to have an aviation industry further deregulated? Let's deregulate safety. Let's get rid of those troublesome inspectors and all that stuff that goes on. No one would ever fly a plane that isn't safe. They wouldn't ever engage in cutting corners. Whoops. That already happened a few times in history, didn't it, during the deregulatory binge in the Reagan years. So if you want to focus on meaningless, bothersome, trivial regulations, things that impede real working people, small businesses, truckers, other people who use our transportation system, the general aviation pilots, you know, and the airlines, great. But if it's just another hortatory thing, which it seems to be, or another gift to your big business allies, forget about it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, we hear now that the Republican majority is serious about the deficit, and that's good news because we are running up a huge pile of debt which is going to be handed on to our kids and our grandkids and won't be paid off over 30 years. Some of this debt will weigh upon the country. But the question is, how do we get there? The deficit this year will be $1.5 trillion, an unimaginable amount of money, borrowed, a lot of it from China, and that is just virtually unfathomable. Now, they're going to dink around essentially and pretend they're doing something meaningful next week. They're going to take out after a Federal budget of $3.7 trillion--and remember, $1.5 trillion of that is with borrowed money--they are going to discuss cuts to actually $446 billion of that. So a $3.7 trillion budget, but the only place you can cut is $446 billion of that. Hmm, let's see, if we eliminated that entire $446 billion of expenditures, we'd still have a deficit of over $1 trillion. Now, that doesn't seem quite to work. So perhaps they've made a few too many things off-limits in terms of where we might look to cut. Then there's one other thing they've done which is totally bizarre and I don't think many Americans would think very honest. They're saying if we decrease the income of the Government of the United States, i.e., cut taxes, give you back your money, and we don't reduce expenditures in the same amount, that doesn't count as new debt or deficit. You've got to borrow the money, probably from China; and you can send the debt forward but it doesn't count. So they're not going to look at something called tax expenditures. So, you know, we can't begin to address things like the $20 billion of subsidies in the agriculture bill for five crops grown in eight States that are in surplus and paying people not to grow things. That's off-limits. That's mandatory spending. That can't be considered for cuts, paying people to not grow things. We can't do away with that. We're going to borrow the money so they can get paid to not grow things. All right. Well, how about the oil companies? Now, Exxon Mobil reported the largest quarterly profit for a corporation in the history of the world the last quarter of last year, $9 billion, and they didn't pay any taxes in the U.S. last year. None. They pay a lot of taxes around the world, but not in the United States. We actually gave them a tax refund because of the loopholes in the tax laws. That's called a tax expenditure. We're borrowing money to give to the Exxon Mobil Corporation, which had a $9 billion profit by gouging consumers in America. Now, that's pretty extraordinary; but, no, we can't talk about eliminating the subsidy to Exxon Mobil. The Republicans have put that off-limits. That would be called a tax increase. You know, by plugging that loophole, that's a tax increase, can't talk about that. Let's look at one other aspect of this. We were headed for a lower deficit this year. It would have been lower than last year, $1.3 trillion last year. We were headed toward $1.1 trillion, a good glide path, $200 billion reduction in 1 year. If we could do that for 5 more years, we'd be down to virtually zero. But with one vote, one vote, with a deal cut between the Republicans and the President of the United States, we increased the deficit by $400 billion this year. Yep, the tax cuts. But remember, tax cuts don't count. Now, they increase the deficit by $400 billion. We didn't cut expenditures by $400 billion. So the money is going to be borrowed for those tax cuts, from China and elsewhere; and it's going to be passed on to our kids and our grandkids, part of the national debt. But that doesn't count in the Republican world. Reducing the income of the government while not reducing expenditures by the same amount doesn't count. They pretend. Let's not pretend. This is deadly serious. Let's not go after programs that are essential to America. They're going to put things like Pell Grants that are helping people get a college education and become more educated so they will have better lifetime earnings and our country will be more competitive, educate the next generation of folks to lead our Nation--that's on the table next week. We'll probably see some cuts there. Other programs like that will be on the table. Subsidies to oil companies? Tax cuts, yes, we can do more of those and increase the deficit. So let's get real. It is a real problem, and let's stop pretending that you really care about it and you're going to do something about it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, by all accounts we're finally going to get serious about the mountain of debt that's been built up over the last 10 years that we're going to leave for our kids and grandkids--nearly $14 trillion, a number that's hard to actually understand. Now, I'm hopeful it will really be a serious discussion, but it can't be as long as the Republican rules stand. The Republicans have said that if you reduce income to the government that that doesn't count toward the debt or the deficit. You have to borrow the money--probably from China--and it goes on the debt for our kids and grandkids. But they don't count that because it's your money. We're giving it back to you. Except, of course, we're still spending more than is coming in. Now, I'm all for looking at the expenditure side, and there are a lot of places I'd like to cut. Republicans have put some of them off- limits. We can't look anywhere in the Pentagon who is still acquiring through cost-plus contracts weapons that were designed to fight during the Soviet era. We're wasting a fair amount of money over there. It's well documented. The Pentagon is the only agency of the Federal Government that can't be audited. Every other agency is audited. Most of them get good grades. The Pentagon, they say maybe within 5 years they will have an accounting system that could be audited. Come on. And we're going to exempt them from scrutiny and review and cuts? The war in Afghanistan, they've exempted that from cuts. They want to spend about $200 billion this year on the wind-down in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. But that's off the table as far as Republicans are concerned. And Social Security they say is off the table, and that's good. Medicare is off the table. They just added to the costs of Medicare with legislation they passed last week, but that doesn't count either. That was exempt. So what's left? Well, we're going to have, because of the tax cuts adopted in December, a $1.6 trillion 1-year deficit. Now, if we were only going to get to a balanced budget this year with cuts, that would mean eliminating the entire government of the United States of America. We'd still make our Social Security payments. And we wouldn't be able to exempt the Pentagon, which they want to do, if we wanted to really get to $1.6 trillion. No more Border Patrol. No more Homeland Security. No more Coast Guard. No more Postal Service. No more Centers for Disease Control. Department of Education, gone. They wouldn't care much about that. Park Service I guess would probably sell off the parks to the highest bidder. I don't know. So you can't be serious and stand here and say we're going to put this hand and tie it behind our back, which is the revenue side. Oh, and by the way, if we give millionaires and billionaires tax cuts and reduce our income, that doesn't count. If we allow corporations to continue to use overseas tax loopholes to avoid paying a responsible level of taxes here in the United States, that doesn't count. Can't close any loopholes. That would be bad. No. They just say we're going to do it all in cuts. It's an impossible task. But I worry even though they say they've exempted Social Security that that's not really their game plan. Because for the first time this year, we will borrow money to put into Social Security. Never been done since the program was created. It's always been funded by its own tax. But this year, the Republicans cooked up an idea--which President Obama bought into lock, stock, and barrel--to reduce the Social Security tax under the guise of giving people back their money and putting people to work. Every Member of Congress will get over $2,000 in tax breaks this year because of that one provision. Every millionaire and billionaire will get over $2,000 in tax breaks. Working people will get a tax break, too--and they can use a tax break--but there are better ways to do it, less costly ways to do it, and ways to do it without jeopardizing the future of Social Security. So part of the borrowing this year, a couple of hundred billion dollars of that borrowing this year is going to be from China, the government will borrow, to reinject into the Social Security trust fund. So I fear the Republicans are going to say, ``Well, wait a minute. We can't subsidize that Social Security thing. And oh, by the way, you can't restore the taxes and run Social Security on its own income.'' So they're creating some impossible scenarios here. I'm hopeful the President will chart a better path, one that doesn't go after Social Security. Social Security didn't create, until this year, one penny of the debt of the United States but this year it will create $200 billion of debt for the United States. A very bad precedent set by a bipartisan problem--the Republicans and President Obama and some few Democrats.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Let's get real about the deficit.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman that spoke before me talked about transparency and accountability. Let's talk about the insurance industry pre-reform. They could cancel your policy if you got sick even though you had been paying the premiums for years. They could refuse to sell you a policy if they don't like the way you look or if you've had a minor health problem. We changed that. People can now get health insurance and keep their health insurance if they've been paying their premiums. But now they want to go back to those bad old days, and they talk about transparency and accountability. How accountable is an industry that is exempt from antitrust law? Health insurance companies can and do collude to exclude people from coverage, to red line, to drive up premiums, to not sell in one State, not compete with one another. There's no free market and competition and transparency and accountability. If the Republicans really wanted to do something today, and if they want to showboat with this repeal, they could at least replace it by making the industry comply with the same competitive rules as every other industry in America except for professional sports, and that is they would be subject to antitrust law restrictions.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady. The previous speaker is right. This is not symbolic. It's real. In fact, the Republicans are going to allow the return of the worst abuses of the health insurance industry. Preexisting condition exclusions. Taking away your policy when you get sick. Lifetime and annual caps. Throwing your kids off your policies. The Republican repeal of this bill would enable all those things for their, very, very generous benefactors in the insurance industry. I haven't had a single constituent--and I know you haven't--beg you to bring back these abuses. Is that what you're doing? Is that what they want? You could take steps right now in fact to rein in this industry, and 400 people in this House voted for it last year. Let's take away their unfair exemption from antitrust laws so they can't collude to drive up prices, they can't collude to take away your insurance, they can't collude to throw your kids off; and all the other anticompetitive things that industry does. I offered that amendment to Rules last night. The Republicans, despite the chairman of the committee and others having voted for it last year, would not allow it. This is an insurance industry bill plain and simple.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The lack of response from the Republican side is a bit interesting because we are about to add $430 billion to this year's deficit if this bill passes. That is $430 billion borrowed, probably from China, added to the deficit. A record $1.75 trillion. Now, we have been told this is the only deal, the best deal. No, we have offered an alternative. And earlier today, I thought we had some prospect of actually voting on it, one that's much less expensive, more targeted to working families, average Americans, and those who are unemployed would have created real jobs with substantial investment in infrastructure projects, not the jobs you are going to get by giving people small tax breaks and saying, Here is some borrowed money from China; go out and buy some goods from China. That will put America on the path to recovery. Every other industrial nation on Earth is talking about buckling down a little bit and austerity measures and having a sustained recovery. No, not here. We got out the credit card. A trillion dollars--well, no. It's only $858 billion. And guess what, our kids and grandkids are going to be paying that bill for 30 years. And the most insidious part is that $111 billion of that will come from the Social Security trust fund. But don't worry, after we take the money from the Social Security trust fund and ask people to consume with it, present day consumption, in order to take care of Social Security in the long term, we will go out and borrow $111 billion from China and reinject it into the trust fund. And then a year from today, the Republicans will say to President Obama, You can't raise taxes on every working American. You can't restore the Social Security tax. And, oh, by the way, we just can't afford to subsidize that program anymore. We are just going to have to cut it. This is a bad deal. It isn't going to create the jobs we could create for a smaller price tag. It's not going to give the relief we, as Democrats, want to give the working families and unemployed Americans and put this country on a path to recovery. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and get made in order an amendment that would make major structural changes to this deal. It should not be a take-it-or-leave-it deal dictated by the Republican minority leader.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. What we are about to do here today is extraordinary, and the impact will be felt by our kids and grandkids for the next 30 years. With one vote, we are going to increase the already projected record deficit for this year of $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion. Every penny of income forgone here tonight will be borrowed, much of it from China and some of it from our Social Security trust fund, for the first time in our history. For what? For continuing the failed economic policies of the last 9 years? We've got these tax cuts in place today. How many jobs are they creating? But you tell me we can't afford to invest, we can't rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, we don't have the money to do that. We know we can create real jobs there. We can increase the productivity of our Nation. We can compete better worldwide if we invest in our infrastructure and our education system and our people. But no, we're going to have debt-financed, consumption-driven recovery as people buy goods made in China and, of course, the $112 billion taken out of Social Security. And the Republicans have made it painfully clear tonight that the temporary cut in Social Security income is not temporary. They've said it time and time and time again. There is no such thing as a temporary tax cut. I hope the White House is listening. They're about to spring the trap, and next year, they will say, Mr. President, you're going to raise taxes on every working American by making Social Security whole. You can't do that. Oh, and by the way, we're tired of subsidizing that program with money we're borrowing. That is a horrible, horrible step for this Congress to take.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding the time. It is fairly extraordinary to listen to the debate coming from the Republican side of the aisle. We are headed toward--before this vote--a $1.3 trillion deficit next year. With this single vote, we will increase the deficit, the debt of the United States, by $430 billion this year and $430 billion next year. Republicans want to pretend that somehow if you cut your income, you can still balance your budget. That would surprise most Americans. Most Americans don't cut back hours at work when they can't make ends meet at home unless they are forced to by their employer. These tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, were put into effect at a time of surplus. The rationale was give people back their money, we have a surplus as far as the eye can see. Now we're teetering on the edge of having the United States of America's debt rating downgraded. And if you increase the debt next year by $1.7 trillion--and you say, well, don't worry, we'll take care of it with some cuts. Cuts? $450 billion in 1 year? I don't think so, unless basically you eliminate virtually the entire government, close the prisons, turn the prisoners out, open the borders, no Coast Guard, and we go on down the list. $450 billion? No, you're not going to do that, and you know you're not going to do that. You're just pretending. But even worse, $111 billion of this is going to come from Social Security. The Social Security trust fund has been inviolate since it was set up by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and wise men 75 years ago. He said this will be an earned benefit; Congress can't touch the money and can't cut the benefits. No, but what we're going to do in this deal, constructed by the Republicans--no Democrat has ever proposed this, no hearing has ever been held on it--is we're going to give a tax holiday. But don't worry, we'll make the Social Security trust fund whole; we'll go out and borrow $111 billion from China and we'll inject it back into the Social Security trust fund. What an absurdity and what a threat to the future of Social Security because next year they'll say, hey, we can't afford to subsidize Social Security, we can't afford to borrow $111 billion from China, but don't let that tax go back up, that will be the largest tax increase on working people in the history of the United States--just like we're hearing now. We go back to the Clinton- era taxes, the largest tax increase in the history of the United States. We created 23 million jobs during the Clinton administration, we balanced the budget of the United States of America, and we did that under the tax rates that would come back into effect on the 1st. But now you're going to attack Social Security, hold the unemployed hostage, and reduce the income of the United States and increase our debt. What a pathetic position to take.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Yesterday, with one vote, the United States Senate increased the debt of the United States by $858 billion. Is this the best we can do to help those out of work, the best we can do to begin a sustained economic recovery, to enshrine the trickle-down, supply-side tax cuts of the Bush years that have failed so miserably over the last decade and some of the worst aspects of the so-called stimulus debt finance consumption of goods made in China with money borrowed from China? Worse yet, $112 billion of this is going to come from Social Security, the first time Congress has ever broken down the firewall between the general fund of the United States and the sacrosanct Social Security trust fund. No, we could do much, much better.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, S.1448 is identical to legislation that I introduced in the House of Representatives with Representative Schrader in March. The bill accomplishes two things: 1) it corrects a disparity between federally recognized tribes in Oregon in how these tribes lease land held in trust, and 2) it incentivizes long term investment that will attract businesses and create jobs for Oregon tribes and nearby communities. Currently, four of the nine federally recognized tribes in Oregon are able to lease land held in trust by the federal government for up to 99 years without going through a maze of bureaucracy and red tape at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 99 year lease authority is crucial to attracting and retaining long-term investment, incentivizing economic development projects on trust land, and creating jobs for communities that need them the most. But five of Oregon's nine federally recognized tribes--the Coquille, the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath, and the Burns Paiute do NOT have this important authority. These tribes are limited to 25 year leases or must rely on a lethargic BIA to approve longer leases on an individual basis. S.1448 fixes this disparity and gives all nine federally recognized tribes the same authority to pursue economic development and job- creating activities on land held in trust. The bill enjoys bipartisan support, has no opposition in the state of Oregon, and passed the U.S. Senate without amendment and by unanimous consent. This is a no-brainer. It's good for the Tribes. It's good for rural and tribal communities. The bill will create jobs and incentivize financial investment. I ask my colleagues to pass this bill today on suspension and send it to President Obama for his signature.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, today, the Senate with one vote will increase this fiscal year's deficit by $430 billion under the pretense that it will get our economy back on track and create millions of jobs--and yes, there is a Santa Claus. Thank you very much. Over 2 years, $858 billion in total has been financed with money borrowed, in good part, from China to pay for an extension of the stimulus tax cuts with a new twist--the money will be stolen from the Social Security Trust Fund and a large dose of Bush era trickle-down tax cuts, with new breaks for States over $10 million. Last week, the Democratic Caucus spoke almost unanimously against this--and this week, under pressure from the White House and the Republican leader of the Senate, it appears our leadership is attempting to avoid our wishes and bring this bill forward without major changes. It will be a disaster for the American people. It is a bad deal for taxpayers, people who are unemployed and our kids and grandkids.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, as a matter of principal, I do not support sports-related hortatory resolutions. My constituents have insisted that chronic unemployment and the lagging economy be addressed by Congress; and yet sporting accomplishments have foolishly taken precedence on Capitol Hill. My ``present'' vote on H. Res. 176I does not connote any ill feelings toward Heisman Trophy winner Cameron Newton or the Auburn University athletic program. I appreciate the hard work and dedication exhibited by student athletes like Cameron Newton. However, I do not think that airing such appreciation on the House floor is the wisest use of time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has served the House of Representatives and the nation for nearly fifty years, and who has been a tenacious protector of our transportation infrastructure, Chairman James L. Oberstar. Jim Oberstar has skillfully served the residents of Minnesota's 8th Congressional District for thirty-six years, and served the U.S. House of Representatives for twelve years before that as staff to former Congressman John Blatnik and the House Committee on Public Works. He has served with thirteen Secretaries of Transportation, seven presidents, and thousands of Members of Congress. For nearly fifty years this institution has been fortunate to have a public servant like Jim Oberstar as a staffer and Member, and while he has left his mark in countless ways, the United States Congress is losing a titan. No one knows the meaning of public service more than Jim Oberstar and I can think of no one who has more knowledge of and passion for transportation policy. Jim is steeped not only in the history of this legislative body, but in the intricacies and inner workings of every transportation program created in the past sixty years. He is a member of the old guard who is able to put aside political differences to work out a compromise for the greater good. He leaves behind an impressive legacy of important legislation, from laws to ensure the better maintenance and safety of aircraft to bipartisan legislation to ensure gas tax revenues are used only to fix roads and bridges, not to make the budget deficit look smaller. When I came to Congress twenty-four years ago, I was very pleased to be assigned to what is now called the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I knew the ability to impact our nation's transportation policy could pay dividends by helping American businesses compete in a global economy. It was there I first met Jim, by then a twelve year veteran of the Committee, who helped me learn the ropes of the Committee and imparted on me his passion for transportation policy. He has always been a champion for infrastructure investment and for the little guy. Jim has been a tremendous mentor to me and I only regret we weren't able to complete our surface transportation authorization bill this year. Jim's legacy in Congress will live on as we continue to work to strengthen our economy by ensuring the U.S. has a safe and world-class transportation system. No other Committee in Congress has had such a significant impact on keeping Americans safe and our economy moving, and there has been no better champion for transportation than Jim Oberstar. I will miss my good friend.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the Senate has acted on the so-called tax cut proposal. They acted the way the Senate usually acts when confronted with a problem; they added ornaments to the Christmas tree. They actually increased the cost. This legislation will cost $858 billion over 2 years. That is bigger than the much-reviled stimulus passed in the beginning of the Obama Presidency: $858 billion. That will add approximately $430 billion a year to the deficit for the next 2 years. That is $430 billion more borrowed, probably from China. Now, the question is: Is this the best possible use of this money? Will this put America and Americans back to work and get us more firmly on the path to recovery? I think not. I think much of this money is wasted and will create zero jobs. Now, if you think that the Bush-era tax cuts worked well--they didn't create any jobs, but if for some reason you think they worked well-- then you are going to like this. In fact, it is even a bigger giveaway than the Bush-era tax cuts. Or if you think the $300 billion of the so- called stimulus that the President gave away in tax cuts, the Larry Summers tax cuts that were so small that no one would notice and they would just spend them on consumer goods--bad politics, bad economics, didn't put anybody back to work, to get three Republican votes, that is why that $300 billion went in there, and bumped out real investment that would have created immediate and real jobs and long-term benefits--no, instead we had ephemeral spending. That was supposed to put Americans back to work. If you liked that, you are going to love this. It has new provisions. One, instead of President Obama's ``making work pay'' tax cuts, now we are going to attack Social Security. That is right, the Republicans are getting their dreams here. We are going to give a tax holiday of 2 percent on Social Security. Isn't that great? It goes to any income level. That means Members of Congress will get a minimum of a $2,100 tax break, as will other people who do very well in this country. But, don't worry, that that would kind of hurt Social Security, to cut its income by $111 billion next year. It would accelerate the point at which it couldn't pay benefits. But, don't worry, we will borrow the money from China, and we will inject it into the Social Security trust fund, tearing down the firewall between the general fund and Social Security. Next year the Republicans are going to say to the President, Hey, you can't let that tax cut for working people, that FICA holiday, expire. And, oh, by the way, we can't afford to subsidize Social Security anymore out of the general fund. This is a trap, and that kind of a tax cut is not going to put people back to work. Then we have the tax cuts for the upper income, $51 billion for incomes above $250,000. Now, remember, up to $250,000, everybody under what President Obama first proposed would get a tax break. It is only your income over 250 that would be taxed at the Clinton-era rates. And guess what happened during the Clinton era? We balanced the budget, and we created 23 million jobs. Not too bad. Now we have record deficits, and we are creating an anemic number of jobs. They estimate this package might create between 1 million and 3 million jobs, or save them, or later they will say it could have been worse, just like they did with the stimulus. If we directly invested a fraction of this $858 billion in roads, bridges, highways, sewers, water systems, building schools, things that would pass benefits to future generations, we could create millions of jobs and you would have gotten something for your money, other than current consumption. Then, how about this new provision, estates over $10 million? Now, the media keeps saying $5 million. No, it is 5 and 5, husband and wife, $10 million of an estate tax-free, and after that a lower tax break. That costs $10 billion a year. We are going to borrow $10 billion a year, all the American people are going to borrow that money, to give 6,000 families a tax break, who are already doing quite well, thank you very much. How many jobs will that create? Zero. Goose egg. None. It isn't about small business anymore. We are talking estates over $10 million. Then we are going to continue the Bush-era reductions in capital gains and dividend taxes, which go predominantly to the highest income brackets, under the premise that those things too create jobs. If this is a job creator, it is the least efficient, lamest way to create jobs at unbelievable expense. If we want to create jobs, there are better ways to do it; or if you want to do the tax relief, you could do it for much less. If you cut out the upper income, over $250,000, the estates over $10 million, look at capital gains, dividends, don't do the FICA tax, or at least cap it so people at levels of Members of Congress don't get it, we could do this for less and put more people to work.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, S. 1448 is identical to legislation that I introduced in the House of Representatives with Representative Schrader in March. The bill accomplishes two things: (1) It corrects a disparity between federally recognized tribes in Oregon in how these tribes lease land held in trust, and (2) it incentivizes long-term investment that will attract businesses and create jobs for Oregon tribes and nearby communities. Currently, four of the nine federally recognized tribes in Oregon are able to lease land held in trust by the Federal Government for up to 99 years without going through a maze of bureaucracy and red tape at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 99-year lease authority is crucial to attracting and retaining long-term investment, incentivizing economic development projects on trust land, and creating jobs for communities that need them the most. But five of Oregon's nine federally recognized tribes--the Coquille, the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath, and the Burns Paiute do NOT have this important authority. These tribes are limited to 25-year leases or must rely on a lethargic BIA to approve longer leases on an individual basis. S. 1448 fixes this disparity and gives all nine federally recognized tribes the same authority to pursue economic development and job- creating activities on land held in trust. The bill enjoys bipartisan support, has no opposition in the State of Oregon, and passed the U.S. Senate without amendment and by unanimous consent. This is a no-brainer. It's good for the Tribes. It's good for rural and tribal communities. The bill will create jobs and incentivize financial investment. I ask my colleagues to pass this bill today on suspension and send it to President Obama for his signature.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for the time and thank him for his leadership on both the issues before us regarding Social Security. The protection of our Social Security numbers is vital. I once had a reporter come to my office and say, I have something to show you. She pulled out a piece of paper, and she said, Here's your Social Security number. I bought it for $15 online. That should not be allowed. That should be an illegal activity in this country. But the other issue that just preceded this is equally important to 40 million people who collect Social Security and a number of people who collect veterans benefits, and that is a meaningful and well- deserved cost-of-living adjustment for real increases in the costs of living for seniors in America. Now, yeah, the pointy heads down at the Department of Labor have this jiggered up kind of cost-of-living index which puts heavy weight on buying a 4G iPhone and the reductions in costs, and second generation or third generation of expensive computers and things like that. But it doesn't go to basics. It doesn't go to the cost of pharmaceuticals, which unfortunately many seniors have to consume to maintain their health. It doesn't go to the cost of, you know, hospital care or physicians visits. It doesn't go meaningfully to basics, like utility costs or rent or taxes on your property. None of those things are given heavy weight or any weight, in some cases, in the cost-of-living index that they are using to say to seniors, Your costs didn't go up last year, so you'll get no cost-of-living adjustment. I have introduced legislation over a number of years to have a specific cost-of-living index for seniors called a CPI-E, elderly, because they consume from a different so-called market basket than do young consumers in this country. You'd get laughed out of the room if you went to any senior center in this country or any coffee klatch in some little coffee shop in your district with retirees and said, Hey, your costs didn't go up this last year. You don't need a cost-of-living adjustment on Social Security. Give me a break. Seniors need a cost-of- living adjustment, and we need to protect our Social Security numbers.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, as food insecurity and obesity rates grow in Oregon and around the country, increasing access to affordable and nutritious meals for our children inside and outside of school could not come at a better time. Unfortunately, S. 3307, The Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act of 2010, is partially offset by cutting future Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, benefits. While I believe this is important legislation, cutting SNAP benefits for families to pay for a hunger prevention programs is illogical, and isn't something that I could support. Today, a staggering 20 percent of Oregonians rely on SNAP benefits to pay for their basic food needs, which is the fourth-highest participation rate amongst all states. I wasn't alone in opposing the cuts to SNAP benefits included in S. 3307. I signed a letter to House leadership, with over 100 of my colleagues, expressing our opposition to these cuts. I was hopeful, that by postponing a vote in the House of Representatives on S. 3307, Congress, along with the Administration, could renegotiate the SNAP offset. While the Administration has promised to work to restore lost SNAP benefits, staggering deficits along with new Leadership in the House of Representatives, has created no clear path to reinstating future SNAP benefits. Meal programs inside and outside of school serve as a direct line to prevent hunger for needy children. I will continue to support child nutrition legislation that doesn't cut critical SNAP benefits.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have a plan for America; not their so-called pledge, just a garbled rehash of the failed policies of the Bush era that put us in this mess. The real plan, step one, try to block every Democratic initiative, even those that could aid our economic recovery, put people back to work. They would harm people for their own political ends. And if something passes, lie about it. Remember death panels? Now, step two, aided and abetted by a right-wing activist Supreme Court overturning 100 years of precedent. New independent groups, independent groups every day, one a day, are filing with the Federal Elections Commission. They can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money anonymously, no disclosure necessary to try to buy the election for their Republican lap dog buddies. Well, I have got news for you over on that side of the aisle: America is not for sale.