Floor Statements

The Republicans, under the guise of being family friendly, are going to strip American workers of overtime pay. That's right, work more than 40 hours a week, you don't get paid overtime anymore under their bill. Instead, you get comp time.

They say, Oh, this is family friendly, it's flexible. Well, there's certainly flexibility now that employers can grant people leave for family problems and other things. This would be essentially an interest-free loan to employers. They tell you you're working 50 hours, and I'll give you comp time, but it's up to them to give you the comp time. So they could wait until the end of the year, then pay you the overtime without having granted you comp time and having had an interest-free loan. This is outrageous.

Many Americans are having trouble making ends meet. They're dependent upon overtime pay to make ends meet. Wages are stagnant, and they need the overtime pay to make ends meet. Women still only earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to male workers. They need the overtime pay to help feed their kids. But, no, the Republicans want to take that away from them under the guise of being female friendly.

Happy Mother's Day from the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, later today, the House will vote to restore funding to the Nation's air traffic control system to better protect the traveling public and to restore order to a vital sector of our economy by shifting unused funds.

Two lessons are hopefully now learned:

Across-the-board budget cuts are abysmally stupid. Cut a program that's vital to the health, safety and the economy, and what about this unused money over here? Oh, we can't move that, so we took care of that.

Second, there are some here who believe the Federal Government doesn't need to and should not invest in facilitating the movement of goods and freight and people in this country. It should devolve to the States.

Well, this is an object lesson in how vital these Federal programs are to the Nation's airspace. And next year, when the Highway Trust Fund goes below zero and we cut spending by $50 billion on highways and transit, we will have another crisis. Let's hope we don't have to see a million layoffs and total disruption across the country before we fix that one. Fix that one before it happens.

Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of talk in Washington, D.C., about something called chained CPI. A lot of people don't know what that means. We have assurances from the White House and the Republicans who originated this idea. It's an innocuous sort of little change to Social Security, veterans benefits, and other programs, because we overstate inflation in the CPI.

Actually, particularly for seniors, the reverse is true. The consumer price index, as measured, significantly understates inflation that impacts seniors because seniors have a different buying pattern than 20-year-olds. They're not out buying the latest iPhone. They're buying a lot of medical care, going up much faster than measured inflation, pharmaceuticals going up at phenomenal, obscene rates. Housing, energy, and all those things make up a bigger percentage of their budget in retirement.

For years, I have proposed legislation to accurately measure the cost of living for seniors, which actually would increase their annual cost- of-living adjustments. But now come the White House and the Republicans to say we're overstating inflation. Let's just use chained CPI, it doesn't matter, it's all about substitution. If they can't afford beef, they'll do chicken; if they can't do chicken, they'll do pasta; if they can't do pasta, they'll buy dog food; if they can't afford that, they'll starve. That's kind of the bottom line of these pointy-headed economists out there on how these sort of weird theories work.

Here's a graphic that demonstrates this a little better. This shows for a retired single woman, widowed or otherwise, how much food would be lost on an annual basis with chained CPI as it eats away at the annual adjustments and the things that she purchases go up faster and faster.

Each shopping cart represents a weekly food budget of $53. That's not exactly living high on the hog here. At 65, she loses 2 weeks of food. And a woman retiring at age 65 this year has a life expectancy of 20 years. That means at age 85, with this new device, the chained CPI, she would lose 16 weeks worth of her food budget. That's 16 weeks.

Everybody, as they get older, works through their savings and other means of support. And if you live too long, you're going to have a really hard time making ends meet. If we chain the CPI, it will get even harder for the next generation of seniors.

There's kind of a mixed message here. Republicans want to cut entitlements. They never supported Social Security and Medicare, but they just want to cut them to make sure they're there in the future. Well, If you chain the CPI, Social Security, which is supposed to have adequate benefits to pay full guaranteed benefits until 2033, would pick up 2 years. So we cut benefits for 100 percent of seniors retiring now and in the future, and Social Security would last 2 years longer. That doesn't exactly save Social Security, does it?

On the converse, with my plan, where we lift the cap so that people who earn a $1 million or $2 million or one of those hedge fund guys earning a billion dollars a year would pay Social Security tax on all of his or her income, we add 50 years to the life of Social Security. That's about as far as you can measure it into the future.

If they wanted to save Social Security, if that's what the White House is up to, if that's what the Republicans are up to, it's a much better way to do it without penalizing seniors. But that's not really what it's about. It's to take a program, Social Security, which is self-funding, doesn't draw on the general fund, doesn't create any deficit, it's to take money from Social Security and use it elsewhere to plug holes in our budget.

That's not right. It's the highest tax paid by many American workers to the Federal Government. Almost half of workers pay more in Social Security taxes, particularly the self-employed, than they do income taxes to the Federal Government. And if you earn over $112,000 a year, your tax rate goes down. If you get $1,200,000, your tax rate is one- tenth that of someone who earns $50,000 a year; $12 million, one one- hundredth; and those billionaires are paying less than 1 second's wages in Social Security taxes.

If you want to fix the program, lift the cap and make everybody pay the same percentage of their income into Social Security, but don't pretend by taking food out of the mouths of seniors in the future that you're fixing the problem for full funding of Social Security beyond 2033. You're not. That's a lie. Admit what you're doing. You want to cut benefits to seniors, to veterans and other working Americans with this chained CPI artifice.

Yesterday, I discussed the American Society of Civil Engineers' scorecard. Our infrastructure is failing--it got a D-plus-- costing us lost productivity and wasted fuel. Now, we need to deal with that problem, but there is an even bigger problem looming, which is the already inadequate levels of investment in our infrastructure are about to end.

The Ryan budget takes us from a $40 billion investment in our crumbling roads, bridges, and highways to $100 million--$40 billion, $100 million. Transit: $10 billion to zero. That's right. The Ryan budget cuts our investment--that's already inadequate--in infrastructure from $50 billion a year to $100 million. That's about 1 million jobs lost in addition to the accelerated deterioration of the system.

That can't be a serious proposal. This isn't a serious budget. It's balanced on phony premises. Anybody believe we're going to go to zero spending and abandon Federal investment in our roads, bridges, highways, and transit systems? And if they believe that, that's even crazier than the numbers in this budget.

The Democratic budget continues those investments and makes certain we will invest in the future of America.

Mr. Speaker, as I speak here on the floor, the American Society of Civil Engineers is releasing a report card for America's infrastructure.

The gentleman who spoke before me talked about the legacy that we leave to our country and about growth in the Nation. Well, this is an incredible legacy we're leaving and creating, which is an unbelievable deficit in our Nation's infrastructure. We've gone from No. 1 in the world post-World War II with the Eisenhower era, the national interstate program, to No. 26 in the world. We are spending less of our gross domestic product on infrastructure investment than many Third World countries. It's not only an embarrassment; it is hurting our economy and our growth.

Now, if your kid came home and said, Hey, Dad, guess what? I got my report card. Here it is. Good news. Good news. Oh, it's good news. I went up to a D-plus. A D-plus--that's where America's infrastructure is.

We have a projected deficit over the next 7 years of about $1.6 trillion. That's an unbelievable, unimaginable number, $1.6 trillion. That's as much money as the war in Iraq cost us, an unnecessary and wasteful war. We can't afford to invest in our infrastructure, but we're rebuilding the infrastructure in Afghanistan. There's something wrong with this picture.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, if we don't address this investment gap in all of our infrastructure, by 2020 the economy will lose $1 trillion in business sales, 3.5 million jobs will be lost or foregone and there will be $3.1 trillion less in gross domestic product. If we invested $1.6 trillion, we would get 100 percent return on our investment and 3.5 million more jobs. Not bad, but the people on that side of the aisle don't believe in rebuilding America's infrastructure. They have some wacko theory here of what they call ``devolution.'' We shouldn't have a national transportation policy, no. It should be done by the 50 States. Well, we already tried that. It didn't work too well. That's when Dwight David Eisenhower said we needed an national interstate system, and we built it. Now it's falling apart.

There are 140,000 bridges that need substantial repair or replacement and 40 percent of the pavement on the National Highway System is at the point where there are potholes big enough to put your car in. Maybe if the White House limousine falls in one of those holes we'll get a little more action down there in terms of funding our infrastructure. I've been trying to get them to take a position on this.

We are looking at something even more extraordinary. In 2015--we've been paying for infrastructure out of a trust fund. It hasn't added to the deficit. But it raises taxes. Oh, my God. We can't have taxes for something like that, can we? Not on that side of aisle.

Well, if we don't do something about it, the trust fund is going to drop below zero sometime in 2014, which means we are not going to invest any more in our National Transportation System. For one year we'll go from $50 billion, which is not sufficient to even deal with the deterioration, let alone build out a better, more efficient 21st century infrastructure, to $7 billion. That's hundreds of thousands of jobs gone. That's an acceleration in the deterioration of the system.

We're going to have to talk about revenues. It's the only way to solve that problem, unless you want to devolve it to the 50 States and have the States build interstates that don't match up or maybe they won't build the interstates at all. We don't know what kind of plan is coming from that side of the aisle. But I do know that we need to make these investments. As I already pointed out, we can get a 100 percent rate of return.

It's pretty simple. We would just index the existing gas tax, which hasn't changed since 1993. Yeah, we're paying nearly 4 bucks a gallon. It will be 5 bucks a gallon by Memorial Day. And the money is going into the coffers of ExxonMobil and the other big oil companies. It isn't going to repair infrastructure.

We haven't raised that tax in 20 years. If we just indexed it to construction cost inflation and indexed it to fleet fuel economy, we could issue bonds paid off by that increment on the gas tax. It would be about a penny a year a gallon. When I was driving to work one day and they were changing the cards up there, they were raising it a nickel a gallon just as I drove by. At a penny a gallon, I think most Americans would be willing to pay for that if they knew it was going to save 3.5 or create 3.5 million jobs and put this country back on track and get rid of some of the delays and the congestion and the detours and all the other problems we have.

So let's pay attention to this scorecard, to this report card. If your kid came home with a card like this, you'd do something about it. Congress better do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, on November 30, 2012 I sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack, requesting an investigation into Wildlife Services and the conduct of its employees. Mr. Vilsack responded to my letter on February 1, 2013 and my office received this letter on February 13, 2013. I intend to monitor this situation closely and look forward to seeing the results of the internal investigation that is currently taking place of WS employees and their compliance with state and federal anti-cruelty and animal protection laws.

November 30, 2012.

Thomas Vilsack,

Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Vilsack: We are writing to request a

thorough audit of Wildlife Services, especially its lethal

predator control program, by the USDA Office of Inspector

General (OIG) regarding the culture within Wildlife Services.

As you know, recent news reports indicate that Jamie P.

Olson, a Wildlife Services employee working in Wyoming, may

have apparently committed acts of animal cruelty that appear

to violate Wildlife Services' Directives and Wyoming state

law. If it is found that Mr. Olson committed these acts, it

would bring disrepute to the Wildlife Services' program and

the federal government at a time when Wildlife Services, and

in particular its lethal control of predators to protect

livestock, labors under heavy criticism for unnecessarily

killing wild animals and lacking transparency and

accountability. We urge you to be thorough in your

investigation because these alleged acts clearly violate

standards of human decency.

However, we are gravely concerned that photographs,

published on Mr. Olson's Facebook in an album labeled

``work'' and since removed, do not represent an isolated

occurrence, but may reflect a deep-rooted problem within the

Wildlife Services program that allows for, and encourages,

inhumane lethal methods of predator control. According to a

recent Sacramento Bee article, Gary Strader, a former

Wildlife Services trapper in Nevada, ``was not surprised to

learn about the controversial photos. 'That is very common,'

Strader wrote in an email.'' (Toni Knudson, U.S. wildlife

worker's online photos of animal abuse stir outrage.

Sacramento Bee, Friday, November 2, 2012).

We look forward to seeing the results of your

investigation, and thank you for your attention in this

important matter.

Sincerely,

John Campbell,

Member of Congress.

Peter DeFazio,

Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus to talk about an important new report on climate change. Of late, the discussion over global warming has focused on temperatures in the last 118 years, when standardized record-keeping began. Primarily, the best and most comprehensive research on temperatures has gone back only as far as 2,000 years.

Climate change deniers are complaining these studies have been shortsighted, that they haven't taken into account that warming going on today could have happened naturally thousands of years ago. Climate change impacts today are a result of natural fluctuations, they say.

There is some scientific basis to that claim. Variations in how the Earth is tilted in its orbit around the Sun make for a pattern of planetary warming and cooling phases over thousands of years. During some phases the Earth heats up; in others it cools down.

Last week, scientists from Oregon State University, including two constituents of mine, Shaun Marcott and Alan Mix, joined with our colleagues from Harvard University and published a study in the journal Science, peer reviewed, that provides new context on today's climate and rising temperatures.

Instead of looking at temperatures from the last 118 years or even 2,000 years, Marcott, Mix, and their colleagues examined temperatures going back a little further, 11,300 years--the entire Holocene period. The findings are sobering and a wake-up call, and should be a wake-up call to the Members of this institution.

We already knew the Earth is warmer than it was over much of the last 2,000 years. That has been confirmed by a mountain of scientific evidence. But thanks to the work of Marcott, Mix, and their colleagues, we know it is warmer on Earth presently than over much of the past 11,300 years. In fact, we have experienced almost the same range of temperature change over the last 100 years, coinciding with the invention and widespread use of engines and turbines powered by fossil fuels, as over the previous 11,000 years of Earth history. I want to repeat that for emphasis. Rising temperatures over the last century have been greater than the temperature increases over the previous hundred centuries combined.

It shows that human activity reversed a cooling pattern of 5,000 years of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in 100 years. It is extraordinary. And their projections for the future are also very sobering.

Climate deniers are running out of excuses. They said, 118 years not enough, 2,000 years not enough. Well, how about 11,300 years of certified research? They say it is biased by region. This was done in 73 sites around the entire planet.

We have heard about solar insolation. Well, according to this claim, we should be now at the bottom of a long-term cooling trend. Whoops, that is not happening. That shows that this solar insolation theory doesn't hold up either.

In short, this confirms what those of us who believe in science already know: manmade climate change is real, it is progressing quickly, and we must take action. But that is not happening in the House of Representatives. During the last Congress, House Republicans voted 53 times to block action on climate change. Time and time again, they voted to know nothing and do nothing. They argued that science isn't settled, but they vote to cut funding for climate science.

Here are a few of my favorite quotes from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle:

Human-induced global climate change is one of the great

hoaxes perpetuated out of the scientific community.

Another colleague: Media conspiracy to promote climate change.

Yet another one: Shady scientists.

And then my favorite:

Better known, however, is global warming movement's

commitment to severely restrict the use of private

automobiles. The rich will still have their limos, and, of

course, their private jets. Carbon offsets will cede to that.

The rest of us will not be able to travel by plane and will

be stuck sitting at home or sitting next to a gang member on

public transportation.

Yes, that was actually said on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, it's time to stop the nonsense and the blather and get serious about climate change. The evidence is in. The only question is whether the United States House of Representatives will listen and act.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was unable to record my vote on H.R. 267, the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act. I was detained by a very important meeting with Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber about issues critical to my rural communities and State.

I am a strong supporter of renewable energy and agree there's enormous untapped potential for hydropower. Reducing red tape, process, and cost to approve small, non-controversial hydropower projects is a no-brainer. I am pleased the bill passed 422-0 and would have voted ``yea'' had I been available. I look forward to supporting H.R. 267 in the future if the bill is amended and comes back to the House from the Senate.

Sequester. Well, that's inside-the-Beltway jargon. It means stupid, indiscriminate, across-the-board budget cuts. Cut things that are valuable--Coast Guard Rescue--and cut things that are obsolete and unneeded--registration for a draft that doesn't exist--the same percent.

Now, the Republicans are pointing fingers, but I think the finger's going to get pointed right back at them. They're calling it the ``Obamaquester''? Come on now, you've got to be kidding.

Don't they remember their tax pledge to Grover Norquist that has ever forever bound them to starving the Federal Government of revenue? Now look where that got us, when they threatened to default on the debt. It got us the sequester. They refused to compromise and forced us into another self-made arbitrary crisis.

No, it's not an ``Obamaquester''; it's a ``GroverNorquester.''

Madam Speaker, sequestration. You know, it's inside-the- Beltway talk. What does it mean? It means stupid, across-the-board budget cuts.

Take a program of tremendous public import--whether it's a defense program, public safety program, student financial aid--and cut it 10 percent. Take a turkey, something we don't need anymore, something stupid, obsolete--registering kids for a draft that doesn't exist and will never exist--cut it 10 percent.

So instead of doing targeted cuts and getting rid of programs that we don't need anymore, that don't work anymore, and looking at reasonable revenues, we're going to cut everything 10 percent. It's going to have a real impact.

I was told yesterday by the Office of Management and Budget the first measurable impact is in my district, a 10 percent sequestration of payments to counties in my State from the Interior Department, which means in Douglas County, Oregon, the last 10 road deputies are gone. In another county, which is down to one road deputy, the last road deputy is gone. We're talking about counties the size of States here with no rural law enforcement. That's because of the stupid sequestration.

I rise to speak about yet another phony, created crisis, and that would be the crisis of the United States Postal Service, which we have heard is hemorrhaging--hemorrhaging--money.

Well, it's kind of interesting. If you look back since in 2006, Congress forced the United States Postal Service to prepay health care retirement benefits for people who have not yet been born who might some day go to work for the Postal Service. Now, if you had trouble following that, I'd understand it. No one else in America, no other business, no other agency of government, as far as I know, no entity in the world is prepaying the anticipated health care costs of people who haven't yet been born, let alone if they're a specific entity, people who haven't yet been born and might go to work for them some day and might retire and might then need health care, but we're making the Postal Service do that.

Now, I'm not, but the Congress assembled deemed that, snuck it into one of those midnight special bills in a lame-duck session of Congress. So, now the hemorrhaging.

Well, they're hemorrhaging money, hemorrhaging money. Oh, my God, we must do away with them. That's basically the Republican line here. They, so far, have done nothing to either unshackle the post office so it can deal with some of these problems, and, in fact, have encouraged the most destructive instincts of the idiot who is running the Postal Service, who should be fired by the President, to go to 5-day delivery and to close all the sorting centers.

Under the plan of the Postmaster General, it will take longer for a first-class letter to go from my town of Springfield across the river to the city of Eugene than it took Thomas Jefferson to mail a letter from Monticello to the Continental Congress. Yes, really, that's what he's planning. Now, that's not going to cause a bunch of people to abandon the Postal Service--of course not, that will help their revenue. No, it won't.

With this benign neglect, the indifference, the refusal to act over here in the House, we're watching the Postal Service spiral down the drain, both the good and the bad of the Postal Service.

If you didn't make them prepay health care retirement benefits for people who haven't yet been born, who haven't yet gone to work for them, over the last 6 years, instead of saying they lost $41,200,000,000, actually, it would come down to about $9 billion. They prepaid $32 billion of health care retirement benefits, $32 billion. That is by far the large majority of their red ink. Just about 80 percent of their red ink is due to them being forced to do something that no other entity on Earth is being forced to do.

If you want to look for a phony, manufactured crisis, this is it. Yes, they still have a small problem. That would be about a billion and a half dollars a year. If we unshackled them a bit, let them get into some new lines of business--which the Republicans are refusing to do-- if we allowed them to set rates rationally--they've got a couple of lines of business as they call them that make money, and they have others that lose money. But they're allowed only to increase rates-- even if it is losing money to deliver junk mail--by a cost-of-living increase, which it would obviously be less than a penny on junk mail delivery costs. The same on first-class.

If we allowed them to set their rates reasonably, if we took away this mandate of prefunding retirement health care costs for people who haven't yet been born, who haven't yet gone to work for them, and if we settled up on the old dispute over their overpayment for the civil service retirees who got rolled into the FERS system with the Postal Service, actually we could have a viable entity and one that would continue to serve America into the next century.

The post office pioneered optical scanning. They used to have some visionary leadership over there. They need new leadership. They need to be unshackled by Congress. They need to have unfair burdens lifted. But they don't need to be destroyed. That's where we're headed, towards the destruction of the Postal Service at this point in time. Some say young people don't use it, no one needs it, who needs it. They're delivering packages for FedEx and UPS to places where FedEx and UPS doesn't want to go. They've partnered with FedEx and UPS. They deliver packages for small businesses and with their one-price package that FedEx and UPS can't afford, which are vital to thousands of small businesses in my State and millions nationwide. They deliver prescriptions. Yes, they deliver prescriptions on Saturdays for veterans and others.

We need to fix the Postal Service, not destroy it.

So in the middle of a busy legislative week, the Republicans are going to bring up a bill to require the President to submit a balanced budget. It would be good if first perhaps they looked in the mirror, because this comes from the same House Republicans who in the last Congress passed the Ryan budget which got great accolades from the right.

Unfortunately, the Ryan budget, even with directed scoring, that is, made-up numbers, the pretend ``if you cut taxes, you'll increase revenues,'' wouldn't pretend to balance a budget until 2040--and that was after it did away with Medicare, student financial aid, and a few other domestic programs.

Now let's get real around here. One-third of the deficit is due to high unemployment. We need a strategy to put Americans back to work. That requires investment--investment in education, investment in our roads, bridges, highways, transit systems, jetties, levees, dams, and harbors across the country. That would put Americans back to work. That would get this country moving again, not a bunch of fake bills about a budget that they have no intention of balancing.

All but those in total denial--and there is a lot of that inside the D.C. Beltway--would admit that we need a combination of increased revenues, taxes--the gentleman before me disagrees--and spending cuts to restore fiscal stability. Especially with a still-weak economy, we don't need blanket tax increases that would hit the hardworking families of the middle class, and we don't need brain-dead, across-the-board spending cuts that mete out the same percentage cuts to wasteful and unneeded programs and high-functioning essential programs. We can do better, and the American people deserve better.

In that spirit, I offer the following ideas. Pick one of the numbers floating out there. Let's restore the Clinton-era tax rates on income over $250,000, $400,000, $450,000. They are bargaining out there. Whatever. We are restoring the Clinton-era tax rates. We're not going back to Eisenhower. We're talking about Clinton-era tax rates for income above that level.

Restore the same Clinton-era tax rates on unearned income when there were a lot more productive investments out there, delay the across-the- board cuts for 30 days, give the new Congress a chance to make smarter, targeted cuts of equal value, and fix the Medicare reimbursement so that seniors aren't threatened in the middle of the month from not being able to get medical care, and extend unemployment. Come on, don't be cruel to people who can't find jobs and want to find them, although some on that side deny they're looking for work.

It's not the specifics really that I want to talk about here. It's the procedure. That's what will solve this because this is Washington. It's not about reality.

Now, here it is: the midnight magic plan. We begin debate at 10 p.m. For the first 2 hours, everybody can go to their usual corners. The Republicans could decry the increased taxes on job creators, on income over $250,000 or $400,000 or $450,000. The Republicans could stay true to their pledge to Grover Norquist to never, ever raise taxes for any purpose, never. Democrats could say it's not enough; it doesn't restore tax fairness. We could have the usual debate for 2 hours. At midnight we stop, sing ``Auld Lang Syne,'' come together a little bit, and then the midnight magic.

Now, the same bill is cutting taxes for 98 percent of the working people in the United States of America, the Democrats would have protected Social Security and Medicare, and both sides get a chance over 30 days to legislate--God forbid we should legislate around here-- targeted cuts instead of the meat-axe approach to cutting spending. I think that's the best we can do for the American people. We transmogrify this bill with the magic of midnight from one that increases taxes on the job creators--income over $250,000 or $450,000-- to one that actually gives tax cuts to 98 percent of America, something both sides can go home and brag about.

No cliff.

As I speak on the floor today, the Republicans are in conference with Speaker Boehner, talking about and getting an update on the so-called ``fiscal cliff'' negotiations. There seems to have been some progress.

A number of us are opposed to the idea of reducing further the already inadequate COLA granted to seniors on Social Security, but in some other areas there does seem to have been some meaningful progress. I was particularly pleased to hear that the

White House is insisting that infrastructure investment needs to be part of this negotiation.

A third of our deficit is due to chronic high unemployment in the United States of America. If we could put people back to work, a third of the deficit goes away. What if we put them to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure? There are 150,000 bridges in America that need substantial repair or replacement. Forty percent of the pavement on the National Highway System doesn't just need resurfacing. It needs to be dug up; it needs new roadbed. And there is a $70 billion backlog on transit systems in this country, replacing worn, outmoded equipment. Those are manufacturing jobs, energy jobs--jobs not only in construction, but in many other areas; and they spill over into small business and the general economy.

We also need to build an efficient 21st century infrastructure. It's about 27,000 jobs for every billion dollars we invest. Now, historically we haven't borrowed money to make these investments. We have paid for our infrastructure with fees and taxes--principally the gas tax, but others, but the Federal gas tax hasn't changed since 1993. In 1993, you paid $1.11 for a gallon of gas and 18.4 cents went to build our national infrastructure. This last year in my district, people paid over $4.40 for a gallon of gas and 18.4 cents went to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.

We've lost more than a third of the purchasing power of the highway trust fund just due to inflation. Over the next 2 years we will borrow $18 billion just to tread water with the highway trust fund, and if we want to tread water over the next 10 years we'll borrow another $110 billion. Will that happen in deficit-obsessed Washington, D.C.? Not likely. Does that mean quicker deterioration of our infrastructure? Does that mean we forego the jobs? Perhaps not.

If we just simply indexed the existing Federal gas tax set in 1993 at 18.4 cents to highway cost construction inflation and improved fleet fuel economy--so that you don't lose ground because people purchase less gas--we could, over the next decade, save $128 billion--deficit reduction--and have an additional increment on top of that to begin to catch up with the huge backlog in our crumbling infrastructure in this country and put millions of people to work. It seems a very sensible solution: deficit reduction, jobs, and sound infrastructure. I hope those on the other side of the aisle will be receptive to the proposals from the White House for this needed investment.

This isn't the stupid stimulus bill that threw everything but the kitchen sink at the economy. Many things were not well spent. Four percent of that money went to infrastructure investment; over 40 percent went to stupid tax cuts that didn't put anybody back to work.

Well, yesterday the Republicans released a vague press release saying it constituted a counteroffer to the President's roadmap to avoid driving over the fiscal cliff.

Now, the Republican plan purports to cut $1.3 trillion and raise $800 billion in new revenues. It did contain four specifics. Four.

Cut Medicare, specific number 1, $600 billion.

Cut Medicaid, pays for nursing homes for seniors, of course, priority number 2.

Cut the already inadequate COLA for seniors on Social Security, even though 40 percent of seniors depend principally or totally upon Social Security, and the COLA already underestimates inflation, particularly for medical care, prescription drugs, and other essentials they have to buy. Cut that. Not a driver of the deficit but, hey, why not? Cut that.

One more specific, preserve the Bush-era tax rates for income over $250,000. Now, there's a big misunderstanding about that. It's not a tax increase on everybody who earns over $250,000. It's only the income over $250,000 that would get additional taxes if the Bush-era rates went away and the President's proposal was passed.

But, no, they want to preserve that, totally preserve tax cuts for people with income over $250,000. They also want to preserve the reduced capital gains rate and dividends rate which principally benefits--who else--millionaires and billionaires.

Now, they did promise the J. Wellington Wimpy revenue plan. Remember J. Wellington Wimpy? Popeye, I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

That's their revenue plan. Next year we'll close unspecified tax loopholes, but we're going to lower the tax rates on investor income, lower the tax rates on the people at the top. But they're going to raise $800 billion by closing unspecified loopholes.

What would that be?

Do they want to take away the middle class' one tax shelter, that is, the ability to deduct the interest on their home mortgage? Probably.

If they're going to raise that $800 billion, it's going to come from something pretty big, and they don't want to touch the billionaire- millionaire job-creator class.

Now, that's a pretty interesting position, and their position is the job creators who earn over $250,000 a year will go on strike, strike if their tax rates go up. They won't produce jobs.

Tell me about the jobs they have produced in the last decade with those tax cuts. It doesn't seem to work, does it?

But in the Clinton era, when their rates went up to 39.6 from 35, they paid a little bit more and, guess what, the economy boomed. We had 3.8 percent unemployment, we balanced the budget, and we paid down debt.

But now they're saying if they went back to those Clinton-era rates, disaster would result. Well, you know what?

That's the same thing they said when they opposed Clinton tax increases in '94. They said disaster will result. Not a single Republican, fiscal conservatives that they are, voted for the increases in taxes that President Clinton put forward, which ultimately led to a balanced budget and paying down debt for the first time in 50 years. Not one of them because they said it would bring economic disaster and, instead, it brought prosperity.

So they just brought out that old broken record. They glued it back together, or maybe they, you know, translated it into a digital format or something, but they're playing it again, and it's as valid now as it was then.

So it's the same old plan. Stick it to the middle class, stick it to the seniors, and benefit the ultra-wealthy in this country. That's not a new plan. That's the same old broken record.