Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure it comes as no surprise to my colleagues that I have a special appreciation for those that are unafraid to speak their mind, expose absurd policies for what they are, and bluntly and forcefully announce when the emperor has no clothes. It is with mixed feelings, therefore, that I speak to my colleagues today on the upcoming retirement of Jerry Leone from the helm of the Public Power Council--the regional organization representing the interests of the customers of the Bonneville Power Administration. Jerry is one of those rare individuals willing to provide unvarnished opinions. But she has more than the ability to distill complex issues into clear and unvarnished analysis and critique. Jerry provides clear insights, bold ideas and an uncanny ability to herd the often disparate interests within public power. Jerry has been at the helm of PPC for more than a decade, guiding the region's public power systems through numerous challenges, including treatment of the region's aluminum plants, skyrocketing electricity rates, the West Coast energy crisis, formation of a Regional Transmission Organization, ESA listings and a review of the future of Bonneville. Public power, the region and the Northwest delegation are fortunate to have had the benefit of Jerry's insights and efforts throughout this effort. Jerry is not merely a public power icon. She's a lawyer, a wannabe lineman, a retired member of the Coast Guard Reserves, an accordion player, and a journalistic wit. I wish her the best in her retirement and thank her for her advocacy and tenacity expressed through numerous wry comments, witty insights and cogent observations.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I had the first of a number of town hall meetings in my district last weekend on the issue of Social Security. I had an overflow crowd and had to turn people away, because people are confused and anxious and they want some facts. So I will try and explain a bit tonight what I explained to them there. There are two issues. One is the ideological or public policy issue of privatization. The other is the financial and fiscal stability of Social Security. They are totally separate, as the President admitted last week during his round of staged town hall meetings around the country. For the future stability of Social Security, here is what the concern is: conservative projections by the actuaries of Social Security say that 40 years from now, we might only have enough income coming into Social Security to pay 75 percent of promised benefits. The Congressional Budget Office says 50 years from today, 80 percent of promised benefits. So there is a problem that is out there. We should resolve that. I have proposed in the past three Congresses legislation to do that; it is done simply, to say that all Americans who work for wages and salary should pay the same amount of tax on all of their earnings. Millionaires today pay a tiny fraction of their income to Social Security because after $90,000, no one pays. Someone who earns $30,000 a year pays 6 percent of their income. If you lift the cap, you create so much income for Social Security, that you could exempt the first $4,000 of earnings. So under my proposal, everybody who earns less than $90,000 a year gets a tax break. The less you earn, the bigger the tax break. So that is one way of resolving that. The President has a different proposal. He says we should cut benefits. He is not sure which way he would choose, but his commission chose a method that would reduce benefits 40 years from today by 40 percent. So the President takes a possible potential reduction in benefits 40 years in the future of 25 percent, and he guarantees a reduction in benefits today of 40 percent. That is a heck of a way to solve a potential possible future problem, by guaranteeing people they will get less. Then he says he wants to create private accounts. Let me tell my colleagues what the President's proposal is for privatizing accounts. People would be able to divert some of their FICA tax into an account controlled by the government with a limited range of investments; the President said they would be very conservative and very limited, because he does not trust people to invest conservatively; controlled by the government, chosen by the government; and one would not be able to borrow against it, unlike Federal employees with their TSP. You could not withdraw it early, unlike Federal employees and other people with 401(K)s and pay a penalty and withdraw it. And at the end of your working life, the government would say to you, this is the President of the United States' plan: well, that money you diverted over there, we assume if Social Security had kept your money, it would have earned inflation plus 3 percent, so we are going to subtract that from what you earned with your investments. And if you did not earn more than inflation plus 3 percent, the government will actually reduce your already-reduced Social Security benefit; and if you manage to beat the market and beat that, they will let you have that money only after they force you into this so-called plan, let me have my money; the President's idea of privatization, the government controls it, the government lends it to you, the government borrows the money to lend it to you, and then if you beat the market, the government forces you to buy an annuity from an insurance company. That is the President's so- called privatization plan. People say to me, I want to control my money, I can do better. I say, well, here is what the President is proposing. Nobody is proposing that you can opt out of Social Security and just invest on your own. People forget that this is one leg of a three-legged stool for retirement, a guaranteed insurance plan, Social Security, a defined benefit, something that is getting harder and harder to get, not adequate to live really comfortably on in retirement, but something that will be there for you when you retire; something that will be there for your spouse and/or children if you die before you retire; something that will be there for you if you are disabled. I had people coming to my town halls and talk about their parents dying and getting the survivor's benefit; I had people come to my town halls and talk about becoming totally disabled and getting that lifeline from Social Security. Those things would not be available under a privatization plan. You would get what was in your account after the government took back the inflation plus 3 percent earnings against your private account. That would be all your heirs would get. Survivors would get what you would get on disability, plus a minuscule, doubly-reduced Social Security benefit. This is not well thought out. We need to assure future generations Social Security will be there. We can do that by taxing all Americans the same for their Social Security benefit. That will more than assure the future of the fund. In fact, as I said earlier, my plan gives everybody who earns less than $94,000 a tax break. We do not need to have people gamble with the government controlling their investments and then take money back from them just before they retire.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the President talks loosely and loudly of the pending crisis, the bankruptcy of Social Security. Under pessimistic assumptions, 40 or 50 years from today, Social Security might only be able to pay 75 percent, or more, of benefits. That could be described as a possible potential future problem but certainly not an immediate crisis and a long way from bankruptcy. So what does the President propose? Privatization which would actually make Social Security shortfall certain, precipitate the crisis. He would mandate a 40 percent cut in benefits. Think of it. To solve the problem, a possible reduction in benefits by 25 percent, he mandates up front a 40 percent cut, then would borrow $2 trillion, put that on the back of the taxpayers and future workers so people could gamble possibly to try and make up that shortfall through privatized accounts and most probably would fail. What a deal. Let us get real about it. Let us fix Social Security, not destroy it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, as even the sponsors of today's challenge to the Ohio vote acknowledge, the protest is not intended to try to overturn the results of the 2004 election. President Bush won the state of Ohio and the popular vote. However, like in 2000, the most recent election was marred by multiple irregularities, allegations of fraud, and technical challenges. Today's debate provides an important opportunity to discuss on the House floor our continuing concerns about the integrity of our electoral process, which has been called into question by the last two Presidential elections. Others have mentioned many of the specific concerns about the process in Ohio. Many of these problems were seen in other states as well. In response to the widespread problems, I wrote to the Government Accountability Office in November requesting an investigation of these irregularities and a review of whether tougher federal voting standards are necessary to resolve them. While Congress did approve election reform legislation in response to the problems in 2000, more needs to be done to restore the integrity of the electoral process. One of the most blatant shortcomings is the lack of a paper trail for many electronic voting machines. In 2003, I cosponsored legislation to rectify this problem. Regrettably, the Republican Congress refused to act on it. So we headed into this last election knowing that electronic votes could not be verified or recounted manually. Damaged machines and programming errors have actually expunged all records of votes in isolated instances. That is unacceptable. I will continue to pressure the Republican leadership to allow a vote on this issue. In addition, I asked GAO to review the need for open-source computer code for these machines. The new technology must be accessible for review and audit. The voting public must be certain that the system cannot be manipulated, and that their vote is recorded properly and accurately regardless of what system they use. And, I asked that the investigation review the need for uniform and simple standards for counting provisional ballots, registering voters, and identification requirements at polling places. I believe strong federal standards in these and possibly other areas are necessary for federal elections. The varied standards from state to state, and even within states, seriously endanger the integrity of our elections. We need to insure the integrity of our electoral process is absolutely beyond question. Until we fix the problems mentioned today, we will never be able to say with confidence that every vote has been counted, and counted correctly and fairly. Election reform must be a top priority of the 109th Congress. Mrs. DAVIS, of California. Mr. Speaker, the 2004 election is over, and the results are in. I am not here today to dispute which candidate won the election. I join my colleagues today in expressing concern, however, about the irregularities that have been documented from the election in Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we can argue all day about what did or did not happen with the election in Ohio, the procedures that were or were not used there, or about the voting machines. The issue we are addressing today, however, is the fundamental right of every American to vote. I am not challenging the outcome of the past election today. What I am challenging is the fact there are people in America who have been denied the right to vote. And that, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. People from around the world watched the State of Ohio with great interest on Election Day. Widespread reports of irregularities and waiting times in excess of 4 hours were extremely troubling to all of us. I just returned from the Ukraine, where some of my colleagues and I had the privilege to observe the second election there. As we are all well aware, incidence of irregularities, voter intimidation and fraud during the first Ukrainian election were widespread and well documented. People from all over the world watched both of the Ukraine elections. And we have all been deeply moved by the success of democracy there. The triumph of the Ukrainian people's will has been profound. Mr. Speaker, a success for the democratic process like the one we just witnessed in the Ukraine doesn't just happen on its own. It takes the courage and conviction of a country's citizens to rise up and challenge what they feel is wrong. If the people feel that irregularities or intimidation have taken place, they must stand up to it. They must shed light on it. They must insist it be prevented from ever happening again. Much of the international community, including the United States, has contributed money, training and resources to help build democracy in countries like the Ukraine. Having the opportunity to go to the Ukraine, and to witness the process first hand, was an incredible experience for me and for my colleagues who were with me. To see the people in the streets, and to observe their profound sense of satisfaction with the election was very powerful. It was clear to all of us who were there that the Ukrainian people had come to believe that people truly are empowered to challenge injustices when they occur. Mr. Speaker, I cannot escape the parallels we should draw between the issue we are addressing today and my experiences during the Ukrainian elections. In large numbers, the Ukrainian people took to their streets--not to support a particular candidate--but to support democratic principles and the right for each person's vote to be counted fairly and unencumbered. I am heartened that America has been able to offer assistance to countries like the Ukraine in establishing democracy. What we must realize, however, is that America may indeed have a few things to learn from their experience as well.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves today. We're debating a resolution to belatedly strike a provision from the fiscal year 2005 omnibus appropriations act because there was a provision in the bill inserted with the knowledge of only a handful of individuals in this body that would have seriously undermined the privacy rights of all American taxpayers. We find ourselves in this situation because of the mismanagement of the Congress and the federal budget process by the majority in the House. The Congress never passed a budget this year. That led to the total implosion of the annual appropriations process. Only two bills were approved by Congress and signed into law by the start of the 2005 fiscal year on October 1, 2004. Two additional bills were approved in mid-October. The remaining nine bills totaling hundreds of billions of dollars and running more than 3,000 pages in length were cobbled together behind closed doors by just a few staff members with oversight by just a couple of Republican leaders in Congress. The text of this monstrosity was brought to the House floor only a few hours prior to the vote on Saturday, November 20th. That is clearly not enough time for any of us to read the bill, understand it, and ensure tax dollars are being spent wisely. Despite this ridiculous process, I voted in favor of the bill because the alternative would have hurt the people I represent in Oregon. The alternative to the omnibus was to fund virtually the entire Federal Government on autopilot for the next year via a continuing resolution. This would have negated the increased funding in the omnibus for veterans at a time when thousands of troops are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, threatening to overwhelm the VA health care system. It also would have meant Oregon would lose millions of dollars I secured in the omnibus for critical infrastructure projects, including projects at the North Bend Airport; the Port of Brookings; transportation improvements like the Coburg/I-5 Interchange; and water infrastructure projects for Sweet Home, Coburg, and Coquille. So, while I supported the omnibus because it is beneficial for Oregon, I would urge the House Republican leadership to never again bring a bill to the House floor under these circumstances. Never again should the federal budget process be allowed to implode as it did this year. Never again should the House leadership bring a bill to the floor that is drafted behind closed doors by only a few Members and staff. Never again should the House leadership bring a bill to the floor with no time for Members to actually read what they will be voting on. Finally, while I am pleased we have the opportunity to belatedly remove the provision from the omnibus that undermines taxpayer privacy, I am disappointed that two other provisions I asked the House leadership to schedule separate votes on will be allowed to remain in the bill without any further consideration. These controversial provisions--one of which will expand the number of immigrants allowed into the United States under H-1B visas, the other which imposes a recreation tax on citizens using public lands--should be considered on their own merits rather than rolling them into a must-pass measure. With respect to the immigration provision, under current law, businesses are limited to hiring no more than 65,000 workers annually through the H-1B visa program. A provision in the omnibus will allow multinational corporations to make an end run around this cap to hire up to 20,000 additional foreign workers for employment in the United States. An expansion of H-1Bs is not necessary. There is no evidence of a shortage of qualified American workers. Even Bureau of Labor Statistics data compiled by the Bush administration show rising unemployment among American engineers and computer scientists. In fact, for the first time in more than 30 years, the unemployment rate for tech workers is higher than the overall jobless rate. This pool of American workers should be tapped first before even considering an expansion of the H-1B program. Further, there is growing evidence that the importation of foreign workers is driving down the wages of American workers. Given all of these obvious negatives, there are a significant number of members on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about expanding the H-1B program and feel strongly that this is an issue of protecting American jobs and American workers' standard of living. I am also disappointed that the House leadership included in this omnibus a 10-year authorization for new and more expansive recreation fee taxes for use of public land. The original Recreation Fee Demonstration program was established by a rider to the 1996 Interior appropriations bill. Since its establishment, fee demonstration has been amended or extended numerous times, but has never gone through the proper authorizing process. Now, Congress is prepared to adopt a 10- year authorization through back channels, even though it has never been taken up by the full House, and is opposed by the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate. There is also strong opposition in the House from Members of both parties who serve on the committees of jurisdiction. Fees for dispersed recreation on public lands amounts to nothing more than a stealth double tax for hikers, hunters, picnickers, or anyone wishing to spend a day at the beach or in the forest with their family. An omnibus appropriations bill is not the place to impose increased taxes on Americans. Besides, the land management agencies have utterly failed to demonstrate that they deserve an expanded fee program. Within the Forest Service, for example, only 50 cents of every dollar collected actually goes toward maintaining or improving our public lands, the purpose for which Congress originally designated the fees. The rest is eaten up by administrative and collection costs. Losing 50 percent of funds to overhead signals that this is not an effective government program. In addition, the Forest Service doesn't know if these taxes are helping to relieve the maintenance backlog, or even to what extent it has a maintenance program. This body should be ashamed of the process under which this legislation was drafted and brought to the floor. The American people deserve better from this Congress.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Brigadier General Harold King of the U.S. Air Force, Retired. His death on October 7, 2004, ended a remarkable and distinguished career of service to the Nation. Benjamin Harold King was born in Oklahoma in 1919. He began his successful military career in February 1942 when he enlisted in the Army Air Force as a flying cadet. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in November and was flying with a fighter squadron in the Philippines a few months later. He served proudly and well during World War II, flying 122 combat missions in the Asiatic-Pacific and European- Middle Eastern theaters. He went on to log 226 combat missions in Korea and over 100 combat missions in Vietnam. Brigadier General King's decorations include the Purple Heart, the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, a Distinguished Flying Cross, three oak leaf clusters, the Air Medal with 24 oak leaf clusters, and the French Croix de Guerre. Brigadier General King will be remembered, as well, for his legacy of leadership as a commander and operations officer. He succeeded at every assignment and is revered as the father of the modern USAF Air Commandos and Special Operations. Brigadier General King flew combat in three wars and served in the military for over 30 years before retiring in 1971. He resided in Florence, Oregon, in my congressional district, at the time of his death. A flight of four F-15s flew directly over his memorial service, a few hundred feet above the local airport where his family, friends, and community members watched the perfect ``Missing Man'' formation. It was a fitting tribute to Brigadier General Benjamin H. King, Flying Ace.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain my vote in favor of H.R. 4818, the massive omnibus appropriations act, which incorporates the nine unfinished spending bills into a single package. I reluctantly supported this legislation. On the positive side, it includes millions of dollars I requested for important projects in southwest Oregon. For example, the bill includes $2 million for the North Bend Airport Air Traffic Control Tower; $475,000 for the Port of Brookings Harbor Boardwalk Expansion and $418,250 for the Port of Brookings Harbor Seafood Processing Plant; $60,000 for Coos and Curry County METH Reduction and $150,000 for Coos County Law Enforcement Technologies; $265,000 for the Benton County Health Services in Monroe for facilities and equipment; and $200,000 for the Springfield Public Schools, Schools Plus Program. It provides a significant investment in our Nation's roads, bridges, and water infrastructure. For southwest Oregon, the bill includes $5 million for the Courthouse District Transportation Improvements in Eugene; $2 million for the Lane Transit District Bus and Bus Facilities; $3 million for the Coburg/I-5 Interchange Improvements; and Wastewater Improvement Funds, including $150,000 for Sweet Home, $300,000 for Coburg, and $250,000 for Coquille. I am pleased the bill restores at least some funding for the dredging of small ports in my district, though more funding is needed. Despite the fact that these small ports are the economic lifeblood of coastal communities in my district, President Bush had proposed to zero out funding for these ports in his budget. I was also pleased that H.R. 4818 boosts funding for veterans' health care by $1.9 billion over last year and by $1.2 billion above the level requested by the President. Though, as I will discuss in a minute, veterans need and deserve more. And, I am pleased the bill falls within the spending cap set by the President. Our Nation cannot continue to run up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt every year. Reversing the dangerous accumulation of debt will require discipline on both spending and taxes. While I supported the bill, I want to note for the record my disappointment with the inadequate funding levels in several important areas. These areas could have been funded at higher levels even within the spending cap set by the President if lower priority items, such as the President's plan to send spacecraft to Mars or military and economic aid to dozens of countries, were reduced or eliminated. For example, I am concerned that the bill cuts funding for the Small Business Administration by 19 percent below its current funding level. Small businesses are the primary employers and innovators in our economy. I cannot understand why the House Republican leadership elected to slash support for small businesses in this bill. As I mentioned, while funding for veterans' health care was increased in this bill, I am concerned that the funding level still falls $1.3 billion below the level requested on a bipartisan basis by the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I am disappointed that H.R. 4818 underfunds the education programs under the No Child Left Behind Act by $9.6 billion. Title I, Head Start, IDEA, and after-school programs, among others, are underfunded. Thousands of children will be left behind by the funding levels in this bill. Older students won't make out much better. H.R. 4818 freezes the maximum award for Pell grants for the second year in a row, despite the fact that college tuition has risen 36 percent since 2001. Finally, I think it is outrageous that the House Republican leadership stripped a variety of important provisions that were adopted on a bipartisan basis by the House and, in some cases, the Senate as well. For example, the House leadership cut a provision to protect overtime pay for millions of American workers. And, a provision to allow Americans to safely reimport cheaper drugs from overseas was eliminated at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry. So, again, I will support this bill, but I will not do so enthusiastically.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if we just extended the existing liability exemptions and we were silent on these other issues, how would that be different than the circumstances which led to these first flights?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, how did we get to this point? If the government is so in control, how did they have this first flight if the government is overregulating and overcontrolling them?

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Again, we could move forward with the liability exemptions absent this language, and the gentleman says that that would then mean that there would be a more dangerous situation prevailing, or is he perhaps saying we would not do the liability at all? Is that what he is saying, we would do nothing? Why not just move forward the liabilities, absent these provisions and these exclusions in the current legislation?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to reflect on the compromise language he talked about, and, again, since we have not gone through a regular legislative process here, since our committee had no opportunity to review this and it is not amendable on the floor and they would not accept that in good faith, let me point to an unintended effect here. The way the bill is written, they are granting a blanket exemption to the industry, including paying passengers, until such a point as there is a serious injury or death, and then the full scope of the FAA's current regulations would come to bear. What the gentleman is proposing here would essentially sanction the experimentation with lighter touch regulation at the outset, and I think that that might actually get us further down this road than what is being proposed here. But the unwillingness of the other side to even consider the implications of extending this to passengers and then whether or not that ever gets sunset or it takes some Member of Congress half a century from now to get that stripped from law, because you know it is 8 years in this bill, but then I can see it being extended and extended and extended and becoming a mature industry, just as the aviation industry did, with that provision still in place, until there is a horrible tragedy. So I think having this light touch regulation for public interest and safety at the outset, given the expertise of the FAA, would be preferable to all concerned, and it would not stifle or strangle the industry in its nature.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, here we would be looking at presumably much wealthier people paying gigabucks to have the experience. But still I think the point is that it is not necessary to attract entrepreneurs. There are already entrepreneurs out there experimenting. There are professional pilots out there willing to fly these crafts. But to take the next step and say to paying passengers who may or may not be a very knowledgeable and wealthy person or someone of lesser means would be subjected to those risks without any regulation. It just does not seem necessary to promote this industry at this point in time. It is already moving forward. The liability exemption I believe is the key. But to say that if they are going to go to paying passengers, they could not be regulated, I think that is kind of a bright line where we could draw a line and agree.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. We all salute the innovation and the achievement that we have recently seen in the early days of private space flight, and we certainly do want to encourage that. But we go a little bit too far in this legislation. I do not understand why the committee has inserted the references to paying passengers and that we would not regulate until after the serious injury or death of paying passengers. It took me a decade here in Congress to strip the FAA of its requirement to promote the industry. That was something adopted in the very early days. It seems to be similar to what is going on here, to say that in the early days the Civil Aeronautics Board would have a charge of promoting the industry and later regulation became more paramount. But up and to and through the 90s until a tragic accident with then Air Tran, the industry was both regulated and promoted by the same agency. I promoted it out for years as a conflict. And it was only after that incident that we finally changed the language and said, no, it would be paramount that they would regulate in the interest of public health and safety. But here we are again trying to codify the old so-called ``tombstone mentality'' of the FAA by including paying passengers. It is one thing to say, here is someone who invented something or built something and they are going to try and fly it at their own risk here or here is a professional person who is going to try to fly something that was built by this person, fully knowing the risk; but it is another thing to begin to say paying passengers will fall under the same aegis in this bill. This was not considered by the Subcommittee on Aviation in any form over the last 2 years. It was never referenced to the Subcommittee on Aviation over the last 2 years. There may have been some communication somewhere with some member of the staff or between some member of that committee and some member of our committee, but not the Subcommittee on Aviation who has jurisdiction over these matters. So I would suggest that there is not an immediate crisis. There is no reason that this bill must be rushed through today in this form. It could well be passed next year. The liability provisions exist elsewhere and would be continued elsewhere, and then we could have a more thorough discussion of when it would be appropriate to begin to regulate for the health and safety of passengers on these space crafts, that is, I think something that is not wise to codify today because it took us from 1932 or 1933 until 1996 to remove that provision in regards to the FAA, 64 years or so that that carried over. Even though it was long after the time when the industry needed promotion or the FAA should be conflicting itself with promoting the industry, they were still doing that. And people died because of that. And it may not be in the next year or two, but 8 years is a pretty long time to say we are going to go 8 years before there could be any regulation regarding paying passengers.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York talks about the great mandate the Republicans got in the election. Why did they not have the guts to bring up an increase in the debt limit before the election? This is no surprise. In fact, we technically reached default over a month ago. They have been borrowing Federal employees' retirement to keep the government floating, but now they say we have no option but to vote for this today, and they have no plan. Let us distill it down to something Americans understand. Trillions, billions, they do not get it. This is the third time we are going to ask for an increase in our borrowing on our credit card limit in 3 years under the Republican leadership, $2,000 per U.S. citizen. That is what they are authorizing today to borrow. Now everybody here is going to have to pay that back with interest. With interest. And they have no plan to stop borrowing into the indefinite future. No plan at all. They will not allow us to adopt a simple principle: If they want to increase spending, cut something else. If you want to cut income, decrease taxes, either get tax increases elsewhere or cut spending. That is all we are saying. It is a simple principle. It is something every American would have to do before their credit card company would give them an increase for the third time in 3 years. That is what they are doing here. They say, there is no time to do that. We are powerless in face of the Senate. Come on. Give me a break. Members want to talk about demagogues. You are a champion demagogue. You really are. We are borrowing $1 million a minute to run this government. They want to say let us cut spending. We can eliminate the entire government, the entire government, far beyond libertarians' dreams, and we would still have a deficit this year. Now we would keep half of the Department of Defense, but we would eliminate everything else the government does, and we would still have a deficit this year. That is how serious this problem is. And they are borrowing money in the name of the American people who are going to have to pay it back with interest. Our kids are going to pay it back with interest. Our grandkids are going to pay it back with interest. In their scenario, our great great grandkids are going to pay it back with interest to the Chinese and others who are now financing our government and our spendthrift ways. All we are asking for here is a little bit of fiscal responsibility, a plan, a plan to deal with this mounting debt, a plan that any American would have to have if they asked their credit card company for the third increase in 3 years in their credit card limit, and they were also cutting their income.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it is business as usual after the election here in Washington. Right now they are writing a bill to finance the entire Federal Government, hundreds of billions of dollars, behind closed doors. It will be brought up with one vote, no amendments allowed, up or down. Why not? Maybe because we are borrowing $1 million a minute to run the Federal Government, $1 million a minute. Yesterday the Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund announced that its deficit has doubled to $24 billion. They are broke. They cannot guarantee pensions. Social Security will collect $163 billion more than it needs, but every penny will be borrowed and spent this year for current consumption. We hit the federal debt limit for the third time in 3 years, but the Federal Government is not in default because they are borrowing from Federal employees' pension savings. Is this not great? Nothing wrong with this picture. We do not need to change. The majority has a plan: more spending, more borrowing, more tax cuts, more dynamic scoring, which means we pretend none of this exists, and we pass the bill to our kids and grandkids.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and to thank Frank D. Jackson of Eugene, OR, for his tireless efforts to improve the lives of working men and women and their families. Frank Jackson is a man of conviction, dedicated to serving his community by strengthening labor rights. His unwavering vision for working America has put him on the front lines in the fight for decent pay and benefits, safe and healthy workplaces, and dignity and respect for the rank and file. Until he retired in 1992, Jackson worked two jobs for decades-- firefighter and union activist. He has been a steadfast advocate for workers since joining his first union at the age of 15 and was recently inducted into the Labor Hall of fame for his many years of leadership in the labor movement. He served as president and secretary-treasurer of his union, Eugene Firefighters Association Local 851, International Association of Fire Fighters; president and executive secretary- treasurer of the Lane County Labor Council; senior vice president of the Oregon State Fire Fighters Council; and Executive Board member of the Oregon AFL-CIO. In solidarity and strength, I am proud to salute Frank Jackson for his wholehearted commitment to organized labor and working people in Oregon.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, as Congress looks for innovative solutions to educate our Nation's children--our next generation of leaders--I'd like to call attention to a nonprofit reading program called SMART: Start Making A Reader Today. SMART is making a measurable difference for Oregon children who are falling behind. It has tremendous potential as a model for the Nation. SMART's mission is to hook children on reading at an early age. By connecting children with community volunteers for weekly one-on-one reading sessions--and giving each student free books to take home and keep--SMART cultivates a supportive environment where reading skills build quickly and confidence grows just as fast. Perhaps most importantly, SMART delivers proven results. Independent research shows that children who participate in SMART develop key reading skills faster than their peers, and maintain these gains after leaving the program. In fact, fifth graders who have been in SMART are 60 percent more likely than their peers to reach the state benchmark in reading. SMART began 12 years ago in eight schools and has since grown to serve more than 11,000 children annually in 31 of Oregon's 36 counties. About 9,000 adults each year volunteer with SMART in more than 260 public elementary schools. SMART's unique track record of mobilizing whole communities to invest in their local schools has been pivotal to the program's ongoing success. By engaging so many people to make community literacy a priority, SMART is helping to create an educated workforce for the next generation. It is helping Oregon build a solid economic future. Please join me in making SMART and other proven early reading programs a funding priority this year.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss H.R. 10, the legislation that ostensibly implements the recommendations made by the independent commission that investigated the federal government's failure to prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Let me say at the outset that this bill is certainly not perfect. But, I am pleased it includes a number of critical aviation security improvements I have pushed for. It also includes the core recommendation made by the 9/11 Commission to create a National Intelligence Director to centralize coordination and oversight of the disparate branches of our intelligence community. Therefore, despite some flaws, I will vote for H.R. 10, with the hope that its shortcomings can be resolved in the conference with the Senate. I want to expand on my comments about the aviation security provisions in H.R. 10. I am pleased that this bill provides $60 million over two years for the deployment of checkpoint explosive detection equipment. The bill also directs the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to give priority to developing, testing, improving, and deploying equipment at screening checkpoints that will be able to detect nonmetallic weapons and explosives on individuals and in their baggage. This bill would implement the 9/11 Commission recommendation that TSA not wait until the issues surrounding a successor to the CAPPS program are resolved before utilizing all available government terrorist watch lists to prescreen passengers boarding an aircraft. The air carriers currently manage the ``no-fly'' and ``automatic selectee'' lists that they receive from TSA. Because the airlines have access to these lists, some government agencies are unwilling to give their watch lists to TSA because they are reluctant to share intelligence information with private firms. This problem will be resolved when TSA takes over the passenger pre-screening function, as mandated by this bill. Perimeter security is still a weak link in aviation security as evidenced by the recent events at the Orlando airport in which workers were charged with sneaking drugs and guns aboard commercial aircraft. Importantly, the bill requires TSA to submit a study to Congress on airport perimeter security to determine the feasibility of access control technologies and procedures, as well as an assessment of the feasibility of physically screening all individuals prior to entry into secure areas of an airport. With regard to strategic planning, the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a risk-based strategic plan to protect transportation assets in general, and aviation assets in particular. The bill would also require the TSA to develop a threat matrix that outlines each threat to the civil aviation system, and the layers of security to respond to that threat. A strong strategic planning process may avert any future ``failures of imagination'' as cited by the Commission. The bill also incorporates H.R. 4914, the Aviation Biometic Technology Utilization Act, which I introduced with Chairman Mica. Biometric technologies can improve aviation security, and the TSA must act quickly to promulgate guidelines and standards for biometrics so that airports can equip with biometric access control technology. In addition, the bill incorporates H.R. 4056, the Commercial Aviation MANPADS Defense Act of 2004, which I also introduced with Chairman Mica. MANPADS have been used against commercial airplanes and we must do what we can to reduce the threat of MANPADS by working to reduce their availability and developing plans to secure airports and the aircrafts arriving and departing from airports against MANPADS attacks. The bill contains several other important provisions including a pilot program to determine whether federal flight deck officers can be permitted to carry weapons on their persons, as well as directing TSA to: conduct a pilot program for the use of blast resistant cargo containers; continue its efforts to develop technology to screen cargo; conduct a study on the viability of technologies that would provide discreet methods of communication for flight cabin crew to notify pilots in the event of a security breach, and a study on the costs and benefits associated with the use of secondary flight deck barriers. In addition, I am pleased a provision was included to require the Director of the Federal Air Marshal Service to develop operational procedures that ensure the anonymity of Federal air marshals. I am also pleased that this legislation implements the core recommendation of the 9/11 Commission--creation of a National Intelligence Director. While the bill may not create quite as robust an NID as the Senate legislation, it does represent a useful step in bringing accountability to the intelligence community and improving coordination. Despite the aviation security provisions I mentioned previously, there are shortcomings in the transportation security provisions of H.R. 10. For example, there is no money to deploy explosive detection systems to screen checked baggage. In the security bill approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on which I sit, we included an additional $250 million in mandatory spending to deploy these critical devices. Unfortunately, this provision was stripped out of the version of H.R. 10 on the floor today. Further, H.R. 10 does next to nothing to improve rail, mass transit, or port security. These shortcomings need to be addressed in the conference with the Senate. I am also concerned that H.R. 10 is weak on combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The bill just requires a study of how to strengthen our non-proliferation programs. We don't need another study. We already know what needs to be done. In 2001, a bipartisan commission recommended tripling funding to $3 billion a year for programs to help secure nuclear materials around the world from terrorists. The non-proliferation programs under Nunn-Lugar should also be expanded beyond the states of the former Soviet Union in order to secure nuclear materials in other countries, notably Pakistan. The non- proliferation provisions of H.R. 10 should be strengthened in conference. I am opposed to a provision in H.R. 10 that would violate U.S. obligations under the Convention on Torture by allowing the U.S. to deport suspects to countries that might torture them. While I supported an amendment that was adopted during consideration of H.R. 10 to slightly improve the provision in H.R. 10 authorizing deportation of suspects to countries with atrocious human rights records so it wasn't quite as objectionable, I would rather see the provision removed all together during the conference with the Senate. I am concerned that the civil liberties protections in H.R. 10 are too weak. H.R. 10 creates a Civil Liberties Protection Officer that is appointed by and reports to the NID, which means he or she is not independent. Under these circumstances, the officer is unlikely to provide robust protection for civil liberties. By contrast, the 9/11 Commission and the Senate legislation propose an independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The Senate legislation also includes an Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties as well as a Privacy Officer within the National Intelligence Authority. The Board would continually review legislation, regulations and policies for their impact on privacy and civil liberties. The Board would be required to issue reports to Congress at least twice a year and to make the reports available to the public. I hope that the Senate provisions on civil liberties oversight will be included in any final legislation that emerges from conference. Finally, I have serious concerns about a number of provisions in H.R. 10 that will expand the law enforcement powers of the federal government. As one who voted against the so-called USA PATRIOT Act because of my concerns about its impact on the civil liberties of average American citizens, I am concerned that H.R. 10 will unnecessarily expand the reach of the federal government in ways that are not necessary to defeat terrorists, but will pose a lasting threat to the rights we are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. I would rather that these provisions be considered carefully by Congress next year during the debate over whether to renew the PATRIOT Act rather than having them slipped into H.R. 10 with little debate.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time and for his work on this issue, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) too. I believe the chairman and I share an opinion, and that is that the greatest threat to today's civil aviation is explosive devices. There are several ways in which the explosive devices can get on the plane. One is cargo. We have already talked about the inadequacies there. This bill does nothing to deal with that. Another is baggage. I had hoped this bill would deal with that. In fact, our committee dealt with it. We doubled the annual investment in in-line automated baggage screening, but, strangely enough, that money disappeared before this bill came before us today. That is unfortunate. When you link that to the fact that the majority party has arbitrarily limited the number of screeners we can have so they are not even utilizing the inadequate trace equipment and other things they have, and we have reports on how sometimes they cannot even operate the machines they have because they do not have enough people, we are not investing in the people and we are leaving gaps. The bill does improve and begins to deal with the threat of suicide bombers and carry-on explosives, $30 million a year. We should do more. The Transportation Security Administration's own expert on this says it is a mature technology, we are using it to guard nuclear plants, military bases, we do not need to be testing it, we need to deploy it. The $30 million a year in this bill is a lot better than what the administration is doing today. It is still not enough. We should have a goal of immediately purchasing and deploying explosives detection for all passenger checkpoints and carry-on bags, doubling at least the budget for in-line explosive screening, and doing a bottom-up survey to find out how many people we really need to do this job. It has never been done. We had an arbitrary cut in the number of screeners. 11,000 were cut by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of jurisdiction. For what reason? Well, he said because we are going to buy new equipment. Then, of course, he did not fund the new equipment. So we are leaving extraordinary gaps in our Nation's security. This is of tremendous concern and it should be, to the traveling public. This is a foolish place to save money. We can borrow money to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. We can borrow to build infrastructure and provide security in Iraq. But we cannot afford the investment we need in the United States of America to do the things we need to do to make flying safe and prevent a tragedy like happened in Russia, which we have been predicting for more than 2 years is likely to happen here. I wish that we could get the vote on a bill that would do all of those things. They will not let us do it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. My staff says that they can do the computer runs and have the numbers within 2 hours, which would give us ample time to get the bill faxed before the President for signature before midnight tonight.