Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 409.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The Bush administration presided over the creation of the housing bubble and the underlying exotic financial instruments with their typical ``hands off'' regulatory approach. Now it has exploded, and some in the administration are recognizing that the economy is in trouble, something that middle-income America and average Americans have known for quite some time. Finally, the President and his appointees are talking about some stimulus. But they are drawing a line. They are saying yes, we will do some stimulus, but we will not invest in America. There will be no infrastructure investment. They are saying that would be bad. So far, there's no indication either that they intend to bring any regulatory discipline to the bizarre, exotic, over-leveraged, and opaque financial markets, something that also cries out to be done. Stimulus, yes. I believe we can reach agreement on that. It needs to be targeted toward those who have been hurt the worst: Middle-income and working families. The best way to do that, the most progressive way to do that would be through a payroll tax holiday. Nearly half of the people in this country pay more in payroll taxes than they do Federal income taxes. It's a flat, regressive tax. Forty-four percent pay more in payroll taxes than they do income taxes. Lower income Americans, seniors in particular, who work part-time jobs to augment their retirement Social Security, pay no taxes, and would not get any rebates under the President's plan. They need help too. They are struggling with higher costs of medical care, fuel, and heating like everybody else in this country. So a payroll tax holiday would be the fairest way to get money to the people who need it the most, who would be most likely to spend the money, and provide some short-term stimulus to the economy. That is short-term. But long-term we need to reinvest in America, and it is strange the President draws a line in the sand there. It is not so strange, I guess, since the Secretary of Transportation last week, Mary Peters, recommended phasing out any Federal role, any Federal investment in our roads, bridges, highways, and transportation systems in this country. She said the financial markets will take care of that, they will lend us the money, the same financial markets that are totally in the tank and having to go overseas now, the same big firms that are borrowing money from Saudi Arabia and other state funds in order to stay afloat because of all their speculation. No. We need investment in America. Unemployment among construction workers is up to nearly 10 percent, and nearly a million are unemployed. If we just spent $15 billion on ready-to-go and needed infrastructure projects in this country; roads, bridges, highways, water and sewer systems, we could put 712,000 people to work. That's 712,000 people. We could basically wipe out unemployment in the construction trades. But the President says no. He won't borrow money to invest in America, he will borrow some money to provide some short-term consumption. Of course, part of the problem with that is those who won't just use it to pay bills, or essentials, which many will, will be buying things that aren't made in America any more. So that money is going to leak overseas to China when they buy that flat screen television with the $600 or $800 rebate the President is proposing. So we need both. We need a stimulus, and that will help some if it's targeted to those most in need, but we also need a long-term reinvestment in our country. It will make us more economically efficient, it will save fuel, and it will put people to work. It's worth borrowing money to do that.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 772.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated member of the United States Forest Service as he concludes his 32-plus years of service to his country. Mr. Doug Macdonald deserves this honor. Oregonians are grateful for his contributions to the wise and sustainable use of our Nation's forests. Doug Macdonald's personal and professional career accomplishments are as diverse as they are noteworthy. His loyal service and sacrifices for over three decades working in the communities of Oregon are a testament to all who use and appreciate our public lands. I would like to take a moment to reflect upon Doug's career as he makes the transition to life beyond Government service. Born in Yakima, Washington, Doug learned to speak Japanese before he spoke English because he spent time in Japan as a toddler while his father was serving in the Armed Forces. His family then moved to upstate New York where Doug gained appreciation for the outdoors at their home near the Catskill Mountains. After high school, Doug started college in Boston but the lure of the Pacific Northwest pulled him back to where he calls home. Doug joined the Army National Guard where he served his country for 6 years. He graduated with a civil engineering degree from the University of Washington and in 1975 started his Forest Service career as a civil engineer trainee on the Willamette National Forest. Doug's career in the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service included positions in the regional office in Portland, Oregon, and on the Malheur National Forest in John Day, Oregon. In 1986, Doug returned to the Willamette National Forest as the Assistant Forest Engineer and eventually was promoted to the Forest Engineer. In the 1990s, Doug was part of an international team that traveled to Indonesia for 3 or 4 weeks per year to train Indonesian foresters to design and build environmentally sensitive roads. He retires as the Zone Engineer for the Willamette, Siuslaw, and Mt. Hood National Forests. as well as the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area. Early in his career, Doug was instrumental in developing and implementing new forest road designs that were efficient, cost effective, and more environmentally sensitive. Doug also played a significant leadership role in bringing together research science and engineering to improve hydrologic function and fish passage on forest roads and culverts. In the last several years, Doug has worked tirelessly to enhance the facilities of the Forest Service. He has forged new partnerships and inspired innovation and creativity to reduce costs and improve the vital facilities for the entire Pacific Northwest Region. In my own district, Doug was responsible for initiating a partnership to build an interagency center to house the new offices for the Forest Service, the BLM, and the Oregon Military Department. His efforts helped save tax payers millions of dollars in facilities costs. Among Doug's numerous and exemplary accomplishments, none are more evident than the relationships he has built and his commitment to others that he tirelessly displays. Doug has touched so many people both in and outside the Forest Service. His caring for people has resulted in immeasurable benefits to the people of Oregon and our Nation. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor for me to present these credentials of Doug Macdonald to the House of Representatives today. It is clear through all of his accomplishments that he has dedicated himself to furthering the benefits we enjoy on public lands. All of his actions reflect a true leader with a sense of purpose, commitment, and conscience. As Doug departs from public service, I ask my colleagues to join me in delivering an appreciative tribute from a grateful nation, and best wishes to him and his family for a productive and rewarding retirement.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the commission which Congress created during the enactment of the surface transportation, the SAFETEA-LU bill, reported its results to the Congress in terms of the state of the Nation's infrastructure. The short version is that the state of the Nation's infrastructure is abysmal. We are seeing dramatically increased congestion. We are seeing bridges collapse. We are losing ground. We are not even maintaining the investment made by the Eisenhower generation in the Nation's interstate system let alone other vital national needs. It needs immediate attention. And, of course, investment in our infrastructure will produce jobs. Large numbers of jobs will be produced should we go ahead with this needed construction, not only construction jobs but suppliers, small businesses, communities will benefit. The economy as a whole will benefit in terms of our economic productivity and competitiveness with just-in-time delivery and other concerns. And the American people will benefit in terms of more time at home, less time in commutes, less fuel wasted in congestion and backups in traffic. These are investments that need to be made. The commission, a bipartisan commission, by a large majority said we need to be investing between $220 and $335 billion a year from all sources, Federal, State, local, and private, in the Nation's transportation infrastructure. And today we're investing about $87 billion, about a third of the minimum they think is necessary. This is a wake-up call that's long overdue to this Congress, to this administration, and to the country about how we're losing ground. We're headed toward Third World status in terms of our Nation's transportation infrastructure. That is not acceptable. Unfortunately, the Bush administration, the headquarters of the head in the sand folks, are saying no additional Federal investment is necessary; that all of that $220 billion can come from privatizing the Nation's highways; tolling and pricing people off the roads will help mitigate congestion. Yes, they want to toll existing highways, paid for by taxpayers, they want to put extortionate tolls on where they would charge more at rush hour. Now, if you happen to live on the east side of town and work on the west side and have to travel a congested highway, from George Bush and Mary Peters, Secretary of Transportation, the message is, quit your job, move, or tough luck, suck it up. That's not acceptable for America. We are not going to solve this problem through the fantasies of this administration. You're not going to solve it with the privatization of our existing network. Now, in certain areas, tolling, congestion pricing and private-public partnerships, done properly, protecting the public interest, can contribute a small amount. The estimates are, generously, maybe 10 percent. But the Bush administration is saying that can do 100 percent because they're saying they will never ever support any increase in any taxes to increase any investment in the national transportation infrastructure. That's a shame. That's an incredible shame. And it is doing an amazing disservice to the future of our economy. And as we stagger in this recession created by the policies of this administration, one of the best ways that we can begin to build out of it and to make ourselves more productive in the future and prevent future recessions is investment in our infrastructure. You can justify borrowing money to build things that are going to last 30, 50, 100 years and benefit all of the American people and our economy. They want to borrow money to give more tax cuts to the few rich people, many of whom have done fabulously well, some of whom lost their shirts with speculation in this recent market. Other sides of the speculators made hundreds of millions and billions of dollars by speculating on the collapse of the housing market, while the Bush administration and Alan Greenspan and everybody watched the bubble grow and grow and grow and grow and did nothing. We need a concrete investment for the future, an investment in our transportation infrastructure, despite what Mary Peters and George Bush think is one of the best ways to promote the long-term health and competitiveness of the United States of America. We should begin to make those investments.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The Bush-Cheney energy policy has led America to a dead end, increasing dependence on imported oil and price gouging by big oil companies. The new direction in energy policy to be considered here today puts America on a new path to energy independence and sustainability. It will be great for American consumers, saving billions at the pump; our businesses; our economy. And it will be great for the environment. But it will be even better for millions of Americans in rural counties across America. This bill also includes funding for critical county school payments. 780 counties in 42 States will get critical funding for law enforcement, search and rescue, and struggling rural schools. My district, the Fourth Congressional District of Oregon, will avert a disaster if this legislation is adopted. I thank the Democratic leadership for leading us in a new direction on energy and fulfilling their commitment to rural counties. The ball was dropped by the Bush administration and by the Republicans. We're taking it up for all America here today by passing this bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, the so-called Bush-Cheney energy plan was developed in secret, and it was developed in secret because it was disastrous for America. It would have been bad policy for the 1950s based on subsidies for the oil, coal and gas industry, dig, drill and burn, but it was a total embarrassment and disaster for 21st century policies. Today we have a chance to reverse that, to put in place a modest renewable portfolio, but the Republicans object to renewable portfolios; to put in place a mandate on increased fuel economy, which the American people would dearly love to have more efficient vehicles, but the Republicans object to that; and investment in new technologies and new sustainable fuels to take us to energy independence, to free us from the thrall of being subject to Chavez and the Saudis and others, but the Republicans object to that too. And we would pay for it by stripping the wildly profitable oil and gas industry of some tax subsidies from the American people, and the Republicans object to that too. But despite their objections, we are going to establish a new energy direction sustainable for this country.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Get ready. You're going to hear a lot of fuzzy math, obfuscation and general BS here on the floor today; but there has never been a more clear choice between Main Street and Wall Street America. On one side, tax relief for 22 million American families, 247,000 families in Oregon, 39,000 in my district, relief from the onerous alternative minimum tax. On the other side, 50,000 millionaires and billionaires who manage private investment funds and exploit a tax loophole to pay a rate of taxes less than that paid by a teacher or a cop walking the beat. The bill would ask those 50,000 millionaire and billionaire investors to pay their fair share so that 22 million middle-income families can get relief from the alternative minimum tax, a tax originally designed to get at the millionaires and billionaires. There will be gnashing of teeth because the millionaires and billionaires are very generous come campaign time. But you can't dodge this vote; Main Street or Wall Street?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. It's a beautiful day within the D.C. beltway. And under the dome, another day, another free trade agreement. But on Main Street America, things are not so bright. The dollar is dropping like a rock with skyrocketing oil and gas prices. We are borrowing $2 billion a day from overseas to buy things that we don't make here in America anymore. We have lost 5 million manufacturing jobs, 40,000 in Oregon. But this isn't the same old failed trade policy, they tell us. Not yet another platform to exploit cheap labor. It is decorated with negligible evironmental and labor protections. And the burgeoning middle class in Peru, all three of them, are going to go on an orgy of buying U.S. goods after this passes. But the destructive, multinational, corporate-written chapter 11 core that led to the failure of NAFTA, CAFTA and other trade agreements remains at the center of this policy. This agreement is by, for and about Wall Street, plain and simple. It doesn't address our current economic crisis. It is not in the best interest of American workers, the U.S. economy, or our national security.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The dollar is dropping like a rock. We're borrowing $2 billion a day from overseas to buy things we don't make anymore. We've lost 4 million manufacturing jobs. Millions of middle-class Americans are seeing their pay stagnant or declining. Our current trade policy is a dismal failure. It's a failed engine for our economy. Now comes the Peru Free Trade Agreement. The advocates tell you the burgeoning middle class of Peru, all three of them, are going to go out and be a huge market for the goods we don't make in America anymore. They tout the breakthroughs on modest labor and environmental provisions. Well, the destructive multinational-written chapter 11 provisions remain at the center of this trade agreement. If trade is the engine that drives our economy, it needs an overhaul. Instead, with this bill, we are getting a new hood ornament, some side-view mirrors and a misbegotten cousin of NAFTA as a trade policy.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007, introduced by my good friend, Chairman Rahall. In 1991, I introduced the Mining Law Reform Act of 1991, which was very similar to the legislation that we are considering today. The following year, I introduced an amendment to another mining reform bill--also introduced by Chairman Rahall--that would have put a 12.5 percent royalty on hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. It is beyond belief that for the past 135 years, the law has allowed these minerals to be extracted with no royalty paid to the American people, unlike the royalties paid by oil, gas, and coal developers. So, I am very familiar with the issues involved in hardrock mining and the efforts to reform the antiquated 1872 mining law. Unfortunately, none of these previous measures became law. Today, however, we have a real chance at mining reform. I am glad for that. H.R. 2262 is a vast improvement over the 1872 mining law that currently guides mineral development on our public lands. Still, it could be improved further. In the markup of this bill held by the Natural Resources Committee, I offered an amendment that would have clarified that the royalty provisions of H.R. 2262 do not apply to small miners, many of whom reside in my district in Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that there are approximately 3,400 small miners in Oregon that hold 10 or fewer claims, who engage in casual use of the public lands for hand panning, nonmotorized sluicing, and other small, recreational mining activities. Unfortunately, my amendment was not approved by the committee, although Chairman Rahall agreed to work with me to address my concerns. I intended to offer the same amendment to H.R. 2262 here today on the floor, to do just that. The Rules Committee, however, did not make my amendment in order. Therefore, I rise today to speak on this issue. I am told by Chairman Rahall and his staff that the underlying bill does not apply to recreational miners, or those miners engaged in casual use of the public lands; i.e., those mining activities that do not ordinarily result in any disturbance of public lands and resources. Sections 302 and 304 of H.R. 2622 indicate that miners engaged in casual use do not have to get a permit to mine, and section 103 states that miners who hold less than 10 claims are exempt from paying the maintenance fee required under the act. I am told that this language, combined with existing regulations, means that recreational miners are not subject to the royalty provisions of H.R. 2622. I remain unconvinced that this is the case, which is why I wanted to offer my amendment. If it is true that small miners are not covered by this legislation, then adding clarifying language should not have been a problem. If the bill is in fact unclear, my amendment would have clarified it. In addition, my amendment would have addressed concerns raised by Chairman Rahall that exempting small miners from royalty payments was a slippery slope, and that the exemption would have reduced revenues to the Federal Government. Nevertheless, I was not permitted to offer my amendment. Therefore, let me be clear now, it is not my intention that the royalty provisions of H.R. 2622--specifically, section 102 of the legislation--apply to small recreational miners engaged in casual use of the public lands for mining. Hand panning, the use of hand tools, and other similar activities that work public lands for enjoyment or to supplement one's income is a time-honored tradition in this country, and explicitly anticipated by a variety of Federal laws governing the multiple use of these lands. While a revamp of the 1872 mining law is more than overdue, including placing royalties on the minerals extracted from Federal lands, we must ensure that small, recreational mining opportunities are not lost. My amendment would have guaranteed protection for small miners. I am disappointed that I was unable to offer it today. I have made my concerns known to my colleagues in the Senate, and have provided them with copies of my amendment. When this legislation reaches their Chamber, I will call on them to ensure that small miners are not subject to the royalty provisions of this bill. Until then, I will reserve my judgment on whether I will support a final conference report on mining reform.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, after running up more debt than the 42 Presidents who preceded him, $3.2 trillion borrowed and spent, $9 trillion total debt on the backs of the American people, presiding over a doubling of our international debt to more than $2.2 trillion, last week he proposed that we should borrow and spend another $190 billion on the war in Iraq, nearly 600 since he launched this unnecessary war. Subsidies to Big Oil, scandals about no-bid contracts, the President has rediscovered his long-lost, inner-fiscally conservative self. He's going to cast the first veto of his Presidency on a bill that would spend money, after an orgy of borrowing, spending and misspending on many dubious things. His target, 10 million low-income kids. The President stands on principle. Or is it he's standing on a pile of campaign cash contributed by the insurance industry to the Republicans?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the administration proposed a punitive fee structure aimed at the heart of general aviation; and, ironically, they would have decreased the funding needed for an already congested and overburdened system. This bill gets us the investment we need to deal with congestion, to deal with the Next Generation air traffic control. It would allow us to partner with the airports who need to deal with their problems through an increase in passenger facility charge. It has fair treatment for the most critical component of the people who keep us alive, the air traffic controllers of America who are being demeaned by petty work rules by this administration and having their pay cut. It gives long overdue protection to cabin flight attendants and the passengers who fly in those cabins in terms of workplace health and cabin safety. It has critical consumer protection for the first time, something that's been ignored for years here on the Hill under the Republican leadership. It will provide security for overseas repair. Most Americans would be shocked to know that people, we don't know who they are, overseas are doing the majority of heavy work on our airplanes. This bill would begin to turn that around. And this bill does much, much more. Congratulations to the committee on their great work.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, listeners should know that, unfortunately, truthfulness is not required on the floor of the House of Representatives under the rules. It is not truthful that somehow we are extending benefits to illegal aliens. That is against the law of the United States. It is statute. It is not truthful that we have enacted the largest tax increase in history. That is the attitude that brought about the bridge collapse in Minnesota. President Bush told us we couldn't have a penny more to invest in the infrastructure of this country, even though we knew the bridges were crumbling. The Democrats had a list of all the insufficient bridges in the country. But the President said, no, we can't afford it. Not a penny more. Do you know what it would cost to catch up with our bridge problem over the next 20 years? We would have to invest a lot of money, an incredible amount of money. Two weeks in Iraq every year is what it would take to fix the bridge problem in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are stonewalling us on a reasonable plan to get out of Iraq, and they are stonewalling us on more money to fix our infrastructure problems. People are dying in Iraq, and they are dying in America because of their intransigence.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Most Americans would agree that it would be prudent to have a plan to provide for the continuity of government and the rule of law in case of a devastating terrorist attack or natural disaster, a plan to provide for the cooperation, the coordination and continued functioning of all three branches of the government. The Bush administration tells us they have such a plan. They have introduced a little sketchy public version that is clearly inadequate and doesn't really tell us what they have in mind, but they said, don't worry; there's a detailed classified version. But now they've denied the entire Homeland Security Committee of the United States House of Representatives access to their so-called detailed plan to provide for continuity of government. They say, trust us. Trust us, the people who brought us Katrina, to be competent in the face of a disaster? Trust us, the people who brought us warrantless wiretapping and other excesses eroding our civil liberties? Trust us? Maybe the plan just really doesn't exist and that's why they won't show it to us. I don't know. Or maybe there's something there that's outrageous. The American people need their elected representatives to review this plan for the continuity of government.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It was just about 2 years ago this month that we were struggling with the final details of the SAFETEA-LU legislation, in my opinion the signature legislation of the last Congress, bipartisan legislation, to improve the transportation efficiency of the United States of America, investing nearly $300 billion. But, as good as the bill was, there were technical problems, and we are correcting those here; and, as good as that bill was, we must do better in the future. As chairman of the subcommittee, I have already begun hearings looking toward the reauthorization which we would hope to have accomplished by the expiration of this legislation, October 1, 2009. We hope not to go through multiple continuations and extensions as we did in the last Congress. We also need to find new resources to better address the infrastructure needs of our country. The Bush administration's own Department of Transportation estimated before the consideration of the last bill that we needed $375 billion, not $283 billion, just to keep up with the deterioration and the growth needs of the country, as pointed out by the gentleman from Minnesota. We need to deal with congestion to improve American's lives, to become more fuel efficient, and to deal with just-in-time delivery for our businesses, to become a better competitor in the international community. Other nations are investing much more. We must do better. This is an interim step as we correct the bill from the last Congress, and I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle as we develop the next bill for 2009.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the chair and the ranking member for their support on this. This will be a tremendous step toward protecting the American traveling public. It will move us away from a system of faith- based regulation and protection to one based on the rule of law and regulations.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.