Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is long overdue. Those who are here would recall that in the aftermath of 9-11 when this House was rushing to approve a $15 billion package to help the airlines that we were told that there was not room or time, because it was so urgent to be done before the end of the week, to include the employees; but the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the then-minority leader, and Speaker Hastert engaged in a colloquy where assurances were made that in the very near future in, and this was in September of 2001, that we would consider a bill for employee relief including financial assistance, ability to retain health insurance, training for those in the airline industry. Since that time 150,000 airline industry employees have been laid off or furloughed, and we are told now by the industry that even if this package is approved, there is a high likelihood that we will see another 70,000 layoffs. Boeing is looking at 30,000 layoffs; and then there are a whole lot of associated industries, travel agents and others, who have been devastated. So this legislation would begin to redress that oversight by this Congress. The interesting thing about this amendment is it is not in order under the bill, I am going to hear shortly, but this amendment, we would not have to borrow the money to pay for it. We have to borrow the money to send to Pakistan. We have to borrow the money to send to Turkey. We have to borrow for every other function of this bill. We have to borrow the money to build 6,000 schools in Iraq. We have to borrow the money to begin to provide universal health care in Iraq. But to provide extended unemployment benefits to 150,000, headed to more than 200,000, airline employees, we would not have to borrow a penny because the money is already on deposit in the unemployment trust fund. It is true that the administration does not want to spend the $20- some-odd billion balance in that fund and does not want to extend this benefit to airline employees who have exhausted their unemployment; but the fact is we would not have to borrow the money to do it and it helps Americans. We are borrowing money to help people all around the world. Can we not do something for the airline employees? The Senate has acted on this issue, and hopefully we will come to a conference agreement that will provide for this long-overdue benefit; but if the House would send a message tonight, if the committee would accept this and waive a point of order against it, again, not having to appropriate funds, only to authorize expenditure of funds from the trust fund, we would begin to help these people who have been sorely hurt by 9-11 and now by this war in Iraq.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The debate has been a little surreal because we have had such impassioned speeches about Turkey as an ally and how could we do this to them, how could we deprive them of this money, which they did not ask for? The Turkish Ambassador, Faruk Logoglo, said yesterday, ``This is not something Turkey has asked for. It is a unilateral action by the U.S. administration.'' Mr. Chairman, this is $1 billion they did not ask for, they do not expect, and yet now it has become an imperative in this bill, making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations. Why? Why now? Why is it in this bill? As the gentleman who spoke before me said, there will be a time and place to debate aid to Turkey and the many other worthy nations around the world who need United States assistance. But should not this bill be more focused? Remember, we are borrowing every penny. Every penny of the $74 billion in this bill will be borrowed. We do not have the money in the bank somewhere. It is not coming from a contingency fund. It is going to be borrowed. So we should borrow $1 billion to send to Turkey who has not asked for it, and if we do not borrow the money to send to Turkey who has not asked for it, we are somehow penalizing them. I do not think they will see it that way. It does not sound like the Ambassador is going there. There are other needs that are unmet in this bill. The gentleman from Wisconsin attempted to enhance homeland security, port security. I serve on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on Homeland Security, and I can tell my colleagues, our ports are not safe. We have not done everything we need to do. We need more funds to make those ports safe. The most likely way of delivering a weapon of mass destruction in the United States is not an intercontinental ballistic missile, it is a container on a rogue ship. That is how it will get here in all probability. So why are we not making those investments? We could spend, if we need to borrow this extra $1 billion, there are a lot of ways to spend it. We could even spend it here at home. There is $3.4 billion in this bill to rebuild Iraq: 6,000 new schools, universal health insurance. Guess what? We have 44 million Americans uninsured. We have cut Medicaid in my State. I have thousands of Oregonians who do not have health insurance, that need work. Our schools are crumbling. We cannot run a full school year. We could take this $1 billion and spend it here in the United States of America. I have to question a lot of the foreign aid that is in this bill and the priorities that are being set here. So therefore, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and if this is successful, that would be good; and if not, I will offer an amendment later to reduce the funds to Turkey to fund National Guard weapons of mass destruction civil support teams which my State and 17 other States do not have, which have been authorized by this Congress, but we do not have enough money to fund them; but we can send $1 billion to a country that did not ask for it and does not want it.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the problem is the uncertainty who will get to speak or not get to speak. Can we proceed a little further and then see if we can get a unanimous consent request? Maybe 25 minutes a side.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, maybe a little more time is required on this amendment.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, on this side we have at least two or three.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would like an idea how many Members are waiting to speak on which side of the issue, and whether that is an adequate amount of time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives will vote to borrow $75 billion adding to our $6 trillion mountain of Federal debt. Maybe we would not have to borrow that money if we asked the wealthy people if we could cancel, ask them to contribute a little bit to this crisis, but we will not do that here. What are we going to spend the $75 billion on? $10 billion of foreign aid including $1 billion for Turkey, and remember how helpful they have been, $1 billion for Turkey which their ambassador says is a unilateral act on the part of the United States of America. They have not asked for it and they do not want it, but we are going to give them that billion. We are going to borrow it, and give it to them. Billions to rebuild Iraq including 6,000 schools. Universal health care is going to be implemented in Iraq. We already have a request for a proposal online from the United States Government to provide that. What about here at home? What about our schools? What about the 44 million Americans that do not have health care? Not a penny of emergency spending in this bill for them. And then finally we have of course port security, first responders. Where are the funds we need to defend our country and where is the money the airline workers have been waiting for? For 18 months we promised them they would get money next week, 18 months ago.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, tomorrow the United States House of Representatives will vote to borrow $75 billion as an emergency supplemental: some of the funds to support our troops in Iraq; some for large new discretionary or a slush fund to be made available to the President, the Secretary of Defense and others; some $10 billion in foreign aid, military assistance; $2.4 billion for Iraq itself, and now $700 million of that is humanitarian assistance. But the rest is to help rebuild Iraq, and I will go into that in a moment. But the thing is that the House is going to vote to borrow this money. We are not going to revisit the tax cuts. We are headed toward a record deficit this year; but we will not revisit the tax cuts, more than half of which in this House of Representatives are targeted toward the wealthiest in this country, those who earn over $273,000 a year, an average of $90,000 for every millionaire in those tax cuts. God forbid we should ask them to help contribute to this emergency, that we should reduce their tax cuts and not borrow this money but collect the funds from those who can afford to help contribute. But that is where this House of Representatives is headed. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and I hope to offer an amendment. We will go to the Committee on Rules. I expect we will be denied, but our amendment in principle is very simple, and that is to say if the United States House of Representatives is going to borrow $1.7 billion to begin to implement contracts, which I have here, from the Federal Government of the United States to provide universal health care in Iraq, which of course 44 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever, tens of thousands of Oregonians, to rebuild their highways and bridges, and we have a $4 billion bridge problem in Oregon, about a $270 billion bridge problem nationwide, we are going to borrow money to do that in Iraq. We are going to borrow to build 6,000 schools in Iraq when we do not have enough money to educate our kids here, and we are going to borrow money for a number of other things: airports, sewer, water, and a whole host of infrastructure. But guess what, there is not a penny in this bill for the economic recovery of the United States of America. I lost another 800 jobs in my district today. Where is our assistance? Where is our economic stimulus? It is not in the tax cuts for the wealthy and trickle-down. It is not in borrowing more funds to fund this, driving us further in debt and ultimately driving up interest rates in this country. There is a more responsible way to approach this, and there is also a way to approach it so that we are responsible to the American people. Fund this by reducing the tax cuts or eliminating the tax cuts. The United States of America is at war. This would be the first time in the history of our Nation that we have reduced taxes in a time of war, and we are reducing taxes at a time when we are headed already for a record deficit. We are looking at doubling the national debt probably in the next decade. We are going to have the economic profile of Argentina with a $500 billion trade deficit on top of this, but we are going to borrow the money. And what are our kids going to come home to if we do not invest here in the United States of America? They are going to come home to the bill, not in the first couple of years they come home; but when they get a little bit older, they are going to come home to that bill. That bill is going to come home to them. And they may well not come home to good jobs because we are failing to stimulate the economy. We could act much more responsibly in this body in approaching this situation, but I fear we will not. But I will go to the Committee on Rules. I will pretend that this is on the up and up and ask them to allow us a vote on the American Parity Act. That is to say, for every dollar we spend on health care, on schools, bridges, highways, water infrastructure, all needs well documented in our Nation and in Iraq, there should be a comparable dollar sent down to the States; and preferably this money should not come from borrowing. It should come from reducing tax cuts to the wealthiest among us who could at least do a little bit to help share this burden.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, nearly 250,000 men and women serving in the United States Armed Forces are deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have just had notice of the first casualties with the crash of a Marine helicopter. I would like to convey my condolences to their families; my heart and prayers are with them at this difficult time. With the consideration of this resolution, I and every other Member of the United States House of Representatives wish to honor the courage and service of all our troops to this nation. Our thoughts and prayers are with them for their prompt and safe return home to their families. The House of Representatives could have better demonstrated support this evening for members of the Armed Forces past and present during deliberation and votes on the Budget resolution. The resolution that just passed will cut veterans benefits and fails to fulfill the commitment to lifelong care and care of dependents made to our young men and women at the time of enlistment. I voted against the Republican budget Resolution that mandated the cuts in veterans benefits. Instead I voted for an alternative budget resolution that would have fully funded veterans programs and met our nation's obligation to those who have served selflessly in defense of our freedoms. I will vote for this resolution to further demonstrate my support for our young men and women in the armed forces. I only wish that all those who join me in this vote had demonstrated a similar commitment when it came to full funding for veterans programs. In casting my aye vote for the troops, I want to note that I would have offered a motion to strike the whereas clause beginning at the bottom of page 2 extending to the top of page 3. I also find that the assertion at the end of line 6 ending on line 7 (p. 4) is not supported by any facts released by the CIA or other intelligence agencies and was, in fact, debunked in a publicly released CIA document last fall. I have previously made known my concerns with the new policies of pre-emptive and preventative war. I have also spoken of the failure of the United States Congress to fulfill its duty under Article I Section 8, the duty to debate and declare war. Now, as we mourn the first casualties and honor our soldiers still on the front lines, is not the time to continue that debate despite the concerns I expressed earlier. However, there will come a day in the not too distant future when the House will no longer be able to avoid its duties.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, some would say that the United States House of Representatives has walked away from its constitutional duties under Article I, Section 8, wherein Congress and only Congress, the House and Senate, have the sole authority to declare war; and then, on the eve of the first ever preemptive war in our Nation's history, that the House of Representatives, under the Republican leadership, has slipped into irrelevance, silent and compliant. Just this evening we have just finished our regular business, three noncontroversial bills, and the Republicans have fled downtown for what they expect to be the largest ever fundraiser in their history, business as usual, while 300,000 of our young men and women sit in the desert wondering what tomorrow or the day after will bring. They have not been, I must admit, totally irrelevant over the last few weeks. Just last week, tremendous actions were taken here by House Republican leaders. They launched an attack against French fries. After a flurry of activity, hand-wringing, planning, and massing an assault, they wiped out the dread French fries from Capitol Hill. It is rumored that this week they are planning an assault on Russian dressing, and even tomorrow's turkey menu is a potential target. Meanwhile, 300,000 of our young men and women and a few allies sit in the desert wondering what their elected leaders are doing and thinking. Have we done everything we could for those young men and women? Did we examine and push toward options short of war, war, which should always be only used in an extreme circumstance and a last case? I do not think so. We voted on October 14 on this issue, under pressure of the coming election, and gave the President a blank check. Since then, not one official act by this body has dealt with the issue of the looming war in Iraq. Have we given all our young men and women everything they need? We spend a lot of time on the defense contractors, their profits and exotic weaponry, but I hear from dads and moms and from some of the troops themselves that they do not have all the things they need. Some of them were sent over there with the wrong camouflage. They got the forest camouflage. Others are worried about the huge number of defective chemical/biological suits which have slipped into the inventory due to the fraud and criminal acts of some of our defense contractors. Have we served them well in terms of a plan? Have we had discussions here about how the U.S. will conduct this war? Those are scant. Those are all being kept downtown, or at the Pentagon. Do we have and have we discussed and pushed to hear about an exit strategy? General Shinseki, in a candid moment which Secretary Rumsfeld tried to squash, and Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz demeaned, says he expects we will have to leave 250,000 to 300,000 of our young men and women in that country as an occupying force for quite some time. He said that. They said, oh, no, he is mistaken. He is only the head of the Army. He does not know anything. Then he came up to Capitol Hill again last week, and he repeated that statement. They did not want to hear it. They do not want the American people to hear it. They do not have an exit strategy; they have a plan, when I cannot get unemployment benefits extended for the people in my State, to pay 2 million members of the Iraqi military and bureaucracy salaries out of the United States Treasury, and to rebuild the country quickly with U.S. defense contractors when I have bridges crumbling in my State. If we paid half as much attention to the needs of the American people in our States, or the needs of our young men and women, I do not believe that this war would have been such an inevitable result and foregone conclusion. But the clock ticks towards zero, and the President's ultimatum has 25 hours and 12 minutes yet to run. The Republican leadership has adjourned downtown for a big fundraiser, and the House is going dark.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to read the Wall Street Journal today wherein the Secretary of Energy, appointed by President Bush, assured Ali Naimi, the Saudi Minister, the man in charge of manipulating oil supply and heading up their negotiations with the cartel to control prices and to constrain supply, he assured him, Mr. Abraham, the Secretary of Energy, assured him the United States would not release oil from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help control the prices being gouged out of Americans by the Saudis and others. That is outrageous. I cannot believe that the Secretary of Energy appointed by President Bush has cut a deal with the Saudis that we will not release our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help the American consumers, to help keep our airlines from going bankrupt, to help keep our truckers from going bankrupt, and to help keep American families not being able to put food on the table so they can buy a tank of gas for their car. There is something wrong with that. I have sent the Secretary of Energy a letter to ask him to explain his position to the American people.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I attempted to offer three of the thirty- one amendments to H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, last night. Inexplicably, these were disallowed out of hand. This rule is an abuse of the process. Yes, it might be payback to the Democrats based on some revisionist history, but more importantly, it's a payoff to the Republicans' generous benefactors in the insurance industry, and through this bill, a payoff to the pharmaceutical industry. The Republicans claim that the underlying bill, H.R. 5, will control insurance costs through so-called ``tort reform.'' This bill won't do that. In fact, in 1999, a senior executive at the American Tort Reform Association conceded that ``We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.'' This is the third crisis in medical malpractice in 25 years. Each of these ``crises'' happens to coincide with recessions, stock market downturns, and insurance industry investment losses. The insurance industry is an equal opportunity market abuser. They legally can and regularly do collude to raise rates and limit availability of all lines of insurance. If this ``crisis'' in medical malpractice insurance is due to a malpractice crisis then why also is there a crisis in health insurance, homeowners' insurance, auto insurance, and general liability insurance? Health insurance costs are up 13 percent, homeowners insurance, 8 percent, and auto insurance, 8.5 percent. Maybe it's time the insurance industry was subject to the same laws as other industries. Mr. Speaker, the solution that will bring relief and improve access to our nation's physicians will start with a repeal of the antitrust exemption of the insurance industry. Legislation like H.R. 5 simply allows the insurance industry to profit off the backs of both doctors and patients.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, last weekend when I was home in Oregon I noted that gasoline prices have reached the highest level in history, and I know that my State was not alone. We apparently have the fourth highest prices in the United States. Other States are even higher, and I assume that records were set everywhere. That might be well and good if it was all due to free market forces and the underlying cost of doing business, but I fear it is not. We have been through this before. During the first Persian Gulf War, Desert Storm, we saw a huge run-up in oil and diesel prices and aviation fuel which caused a tremendous amount of dislocation in the economy, but the economy was nowhere near as fragile as it is today. Then we found out a little bit later that the oil companies had taken advantage of the war, war profiteering. They had, in fact, raised their prices far in excess of the underlying costs of crude and any other additional costs they might have incurred because of the war in Iraq. Now here we are a decade later. Again, it appears that the United States will soon be at war in Iraq, and we are seeing record prices at the pump, and again, they are talking about the underlying price of crude and the instability of demand, but the increases at the pump and the increases for the aviation industry and the increases for the truckers far, far, far exceed the increases in the underlying costs of crude, and plus, many of these oil companies are selling themselves their own crude oil or they have hedged the price or they have special deals with the OPEC cartel. No, plain and simple, they have begun war profiteering this time before the war has started. It is time for Congress to take action. The economy is weak. Three hundred and eight thousand people lost their job last month. A number of airlines are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and a number of them say that if a war happens and fuel goes up any more, costs them $180 million per penny, they will not be in Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy; they will be insolvent and out of business, costing tens of thousands more jobs and more harm to the economy, all so a few multinational oil companies can squeeze excess profits out of American airlines and families and truckers. The President needs to take action. He could release fuel from the National Petroleum Reserve, the oil reserve, but he has chosen not to do that. So I have introduced a bill to give him more specific direction to give him authority once held by President Richard Nixon to stabilize the price of fuel with a fair rate of return to these oil companies and making them justify a run-up in price beyond a price that has prevailed a year ago today, and secondly, to have the President draw down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to help drive down prices, mitigate supply, require the oil companies now and in the future to maintain minimum inventory levels so they cannot cry wolf and jack up the price every year when they switch from home heating oil to gasoline and all those things they love to do and then they have a refinery fire, nothing anyone could ever expect. Ban the export of Alaska oil. We are going to hear arguments we should allow drilling in ANWR, but guess what, all the Alaska oil can and probably will be exported because this Congress, against my will, lifted the ban on the export of Alaska oil. Finally, this administration is all for free trade. OPEC is not free trade. That cartel, those people, Saudis and others, are conspiring to drive up the price of oil, setting the price of oil in violation of all the agreements of the World Trade Organization. I am not a big fan of that organization, but this administration, who loves it and wants to expand its authority, should use the authority it has to object to that price fixing. It violates all of the tenets of GATT and the World Trade Organization. So it is time for strong action here in Congress and at the White House to stop the war profiteering, the price gouging, driving more Americans out of work, bankrupting the airlines, idling trucks and the commerce of this country, all so a few multinational oil companies can run record profits for the next couple of quarters. Choice seems pretty easy to me. We will see what my colleagues and the President think.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today we are having a virtually identical debate over the virtually identical bill we had in the 107th Congress. Had I not been required to travel to Oregon for official representational purposes, I would have voted (1) `aye' on the Scott amendment to provide for a GAO study to determine whether the prohibition on human cloning needs to be amended in the future give newer technologies; (2) `no' on the Stearns amendment forcing our moralities on other nations; (3) `aye' on the Greenwood amendment in the nature of a substitute; and (3) `no' on the underlying bill, H.R. 534. By bringing a bill like this to the floor, the Republican majority has transformed what could have been a rational debate over the merits and limits of emerging technologies into a dogmatic infomercial for the radical-right. I've consistently opposed human cloning for reproductive purposes. Under current law the federal government is prohibited from funding research that involves human cloning. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority under federal law to prohibit any attempt to clone humans for reproductive purposes and has acted to stop such efforts. I support the FDA's actions. I believe H.R. 534 goes too far. This legislation would not just ban reproductive cloning, it would create harsh criminal penalties that would significantly restrict a wide range of scientific research efforts in related fields. This legislation would specifically halt scientific efforts aimed at developing new treatments for those suffering from cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord and burn injuries. These diseases and injuries can be extremely debilitating, costly and dehumanizing for individuals, families and our society. I'm also concerned with provisions in the bill that would ban American's from receiving new treatments developed in other countries that have developed with such research. If this bill is passed, we're showing the world that our drive for innovation can be derailed by senseless hysteria. Limiting Americans access to new treatments and therapies based on fear and ideology is a backward way to legislate in the twenty-first century.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Americans are nervous. The United States is on Orange Alert. The reports are that stores have sold out of duct tape, plastic sheeting, bottled water, minimal supplies for people to defend themselves against the unthinkable, chemical or biological attack, and to make themselves safe in their homes. Americans do not feel safe in their homes or here in the United States of America. We are told by intelligence sources and the FBI that there are hundreds of al Qaeda operatives at large in the United States of America who they are either tracking or cannot find. Yesterday Osama bin Laden, their fanatical leader, gave a speech urging them to attack, suicide attacks against the United States of America. Osama bin Laden. My colleagues remember him. Remember, the President wanted, dead or alive; we will get him; we will bring him to justice. The President is not allowed to mention his name anymore. It has been more than 10 months since the President has mentioned the name Osama bin Laden because his administration has failed miserably in finding and bringing him to justice. In all probability, he has been given safe haven by the intelligence services in Pakistan, and he, according to our intelligence services and his operatives, according to our FBI and others, presents the greatest threat to the security of Americans and the most immediate threat to the security of Americans. There are other threats that are out there that are making people nervous. We have here a poster from a rally in Pyongyang a week ago Saturday. Now, Kim Jong-il, psychopathic leader and oppressor of the people of North Korea, he has thrown out the U.N. inspectors, thrown them out, and he is actively pursuing more, not a, more nuclear weapons. He already has them. He is actively building more missiles of longer range. We were told today by Mr. Tenet he may have already achieved a missile that can reach the western United States and target my home State in addition to Alaska and Hawaii. He has threatened preemptive strikes against the United States of America or, minimally, against our 36,000 troops who are trying to safeguard the people of South Korea from this fanatic. This is a poster from a rally a week ago Saturday, and it says here, Merciless Punishment to the American Empire, and it depicts the United States Capitol being blown up by a North Korean soldier. But this is a back-burner issue with the Bush administration. It pales in the face of the real threat to America. Osama bin Laden? No. Saddam Hussein, who is in a box, without nuclear weapons, without the capability of delivering whatever chemical-biological weapons he might have had hidden and he is shuffling around his country, trying to keep them away from the inspectors who are on the ground in Iraq, unlike the inspectors who were thrown out of North Korea. But the Bush administration says, Do not worry, we will get around to this someday, sometime, maybe later, through diplomacy. This could be settled through diplomacy, a maniac who has nuclear weapons and is encouraging rallies, showing the United States Capitol being blown up, someone who has the capability of actually doing that; we can solve that diplomatically, but somehow we cannot work through the U.N. and the inspectors in Iraq. We have got Saddam Hussein in a box. Get more inspectors in there. Get the overflights going. Keep him in that box, work with our allies. Keep him in that box. Sooner or later, the inspectors will find and destroy his weapons just as they did in the 1990s. Yeah, he is playing games. Yeah, he is hiding stuff. He did that then. We found it. We destroyed it. We can do that again. Is the United States so diminished in the eyes of this administration and others that we cannot contain a threat like Saddam Hussein and deal with extraordinary threats like this up front, and find and apprehend and bring to justice Osama bin Laden and his operatives? I think not. I think the American people have real doubts about this rush to war and real doubts about the priorities that this administration is putting on the threats to our Nation and our country. I hope the administration begins to deal more seriously with this problem and gets out there and finds Osama bin Laden, and I will support those efforts, and then continue to contain and defang Saddam Hussein. That would make the American people safer in their homes.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kate Wagoner, a 13-year old resident of Eugene, Oregon. Ms. Wagoner, an eighth grader at Thomas Jefferson Middle School, recently won an essay contest held in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The theme of the essay contest was how Americans can be peacefully patriotic, even as the clouds of war loom on the horizon. In her insightful essay, Ms. Wagoner notes that peaceful change can begin with one individual or one family who cares about others and acts on that compassion. However, she goes on to write that it is equally important for such individuals to influence the decision-making of those in power in order to guarantee a lasting peace. As Ms. Wagoner concludes, if the United States dedicates itself to helping feed, clothe, house, and educate the needy around the world, then we may be able to achieve the ``nonviolent'' coexistence of which Dr. King spoke, rather than the ``violent co-annihilation'' of which he warned. I would encourage my colleagues and others to read Ms. Wagoner's essay, which I've included at the end of my remarks. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Essay Almost 40 years ago, on April 14, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King said, ``the greatest 17 purveyor of violence in the world today (is) my own govenment.'' Dr. King's statement is still a powerful message because America continues to use violence around the world. President Bush is pushing for a war in Iraq, while nations like North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Israel, and Palestine suffer from U.S. foreign policy decisions. How can Americans be peacefully patriotic while our govemment gives the U.S. military more and more to do around the globe? To repeat one of my mother's favorite quotes, ``Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have.'' (Margaret Mead, American anthropologist). During the holidays, my family gave money to an organization that helps hungry people all over the world feed themselves. The families we help receive donations of goats, sheep, llamas, honey bees, geese, oxen, and other farm animals so they can be more self-sufficient and live healthier lives. Peaceful patriotism is like this donation. Around the world, kids like me are starving. Around the world kids like me are soldiers and suicide bombers. Around the world kids like me get sick from drinking dirty water, get shot by soldiers, and step on land mines. Around the world, kids like me struggle to survive. Americans, as peaceful patriots, can help change some of these kids' lives. Americans have a right to be proud of their country. This is a nation where people can be and do great things. However, imagine a world where America is also known as a nation that helps people around the globe be and do great things. When the richest and most powerful nation in history dedicates itself to making sure people everywhere are well-fed, housed, clothed, educated, and have hope for the future, peaceful patriotism will change the world. It is not enough for my family to practice peaceful patriotism or for your family to make that choice. We have to have people in power making decisions about our relationships with other nations who share our hope for the future of America and of the world. We can each live as peaceful patriots and help many people now, but if we work together to create a nation of peaceful patriots tomorrow, we can make all the world safe; and secure for kids like me. The message I want quoted in the future because it descibes America is, ``The greatest purveyor of peace in the world today is my own govemment,''

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, these are serious times. The Nation is on Orange Alert. All Americans are urged to buy duct tape, plastic sheeting and other things to create safe havens in their home. That is because of the threat of al Qaeda and terrorist networks. The head of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden--remember him, wanted dead or alive?--the President has not mentioned his name in about 12 months, because he is still very much alive and leading and reorganizing and reenergizing his network, which is the greatest threat to the physical security of the United States. He did a 1-hour broadcast, or rant, against the United States, which was broadcast on al-Jazeera today. He is still alive and well, probably under the protection of the security services in a part of Pakistan where both the Taliban and al Qaeda have free rein and are organizing further attacks against Afghanistan, which is not yet stabilized, and against the United States and its allies around the world and probably against the Government of Pakistan. Should they be able to take over Pakistan, they would instantly possess nuclear weapons. It sounds like a problem. But we have others. We have Kim Jong Il, a psychopathic dictator running North Korea, who has threatened to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States of America, and he has nuclear weapons and he has intermediate-range missiles. He can hit Japan and other countries; he has not yet the capability of hitting the United States. But he also gets 25 percent of his income for his country by selling weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated technology to terrorists. He seems like a pretty big threat. So what is the response of the Bush administration? Attack Saddam Hussein, who does not possess nuclear weapons. He has a few hidden, short-range missiles that do not work very well. Yes, he is probably hiding some anthrax or some chemical weapons. He hid them before. We sent in the inspectors and we persisted over 4\1/2\ years and, guess what, we found them and we destroyed them, without the destabilization of that entire region after the first war in the Gulf. We could do that again. We could have enhanced inspections. We could move forward and begin to deal with these other threats, these very real threats. The administration keeps telling us blithely, just sort of in offhand comments, Don't worry, we can multitask. We can take care of Kim Jong Il and his nuclear weapons through diplomacy somehow. But not the Middle East. And, yeah, we'll get around to Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, later. Yeah, it's serious, he's in Pakistan, he's making broadcasts, he's organizing and they are the greatest threat to the United States of America and its citizens, but we don't have time for them right now because we want to go after this little tin pot dictator who's terrorizing his own people and is surrounded in a box in his country in the Middle East with inspectors on the ground and about to have planes flying overhead. Plus the U.S., of course, controls a significant amount of his airspace now. But the response of the administration is, ``That's our highest priority.'' I fear that this administration has misplaced priorities that are not going to provide the protection that our country warrants, and I know that their priorities are totally misplaced in terms of the economy. I just met yesterday with a group of dislocated workers in my district who are getting retrained, trying desperately to find work. We have the highest unemployment rate in the Nation, yet the economists and other pundits tell us, Well, the clouds of war, the high oil prices and all that, you can't expect the economy to recover right now. How about if we chose a different path and revitalized our economy and invested there and put people back to work, that is the greatest threat to the security of the people in my district, and then dealt with the real threats to our security, like Osama bin Laden, dead or alive? It is about time the President delivered on that promise. It has been almost 2 years. And how about Kim Jong Il and his nuclear weapons? Let us get to the real threats. Let us deal reasonably with the problems in the Middle East, but let us not exaggerate them and say that he is the greatest threat because our intelligence services and all the foreign intelligence services tell us that is just not true. We have got him contained, we have got him where we want him and we can take the time to find and disarm his weapons.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the state of our Union is not sound. Millions of Americans and their families are not secure in their home, not because of some new wave of crime or because of some immediate and compelling threat from Iraq or other hostile foreign nations, but because so many have lost their jobs, or many fear the loss of their job or lay-off in the near future. One point seven million jobs have been lost since January 2001. The number of people unemployed for more than 6 months has tripled in the last 2 years. One point three million more people have fallen into poverty in the last 2 years, the first increase in a decade. Bankruptcies are up 23 percent in the last year. Forty-four million Americans have no health insurance. The government surplus has evaporated. We have a huge and growing deficit as far as the eye can see. Social Security lockbox has been broken open and pillaged, and the trust funds are being spent on day-to-day operations of the government. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund, which insures the pensions of Americans in case their company or plan should fail, is broke. It has spent its entire reserves in the last 2 years. State budgets are the worst since the Great Depression. We are in a domestic economic crisis. That is pretty clear, but the question becomes what is the President going to propose? It appears that he is going to propose more of the same. When the President was a candidate, we had a large surplus and a booming economy. He proposed tax cuts for the wealthy. When the President was newly elected, we had a faltering economy, and he said we still had a surplus, and he proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, and he got many of those proposals through. Now he is in his third year as President. We are in a recession. We have huge and growing deficits, and the President has proposed, surprise, tax cuts for the wealthy. His plan is to exempt dividends supposedly because of double taxation, except most of the corporations who pay dividends do not pay Federal income taxes. They have taken advantage of loopholes through Bermuda and other places to not pay taxes. They are not double-taxed. That is not the issue, double taxation or fairness. It is to give a huge gift to the wealthy. The average tax cut for an Oregonian, for my State, with an income of $32,000, people who could use a little help, it will be $40. Do not spend it all in one place. But the average millionaire tax cut, $45,000, those who have already done so well under his previous tax cuts, and it will compound the State's financial problems. It will cost the States $4 billion, this little dividend gift to wealthy investors, and it will cost my State $100 million, a State already in crisis. There is no credible economist in the United States of America who pretends that this would in any way stimulate the economy, especially since the money will not be refunded to these wealthy folks until next year even if they choose to spend it in a way that might create jobs. Then the other leg of his way to boost our economy is a war. I believe many are puzzling over what is this about. Is there this a tremendous threat? Well, he has not yet revealed either to me, the United States Congress in any of our classified briefings here on the floor of the House, or in unclassified briefings or in other materials the proof that there is a credible and immediate threat from Saddam Hussein. We do know that in North Korea they have nuclear weapons. They are building more nuclear weapons. They have tested long-range missiles. We do know in Iran that they have a very advanced nuclear program. Apparently Saddam Hussein does not have one at all, and his missiles that he has, so-called, can reach only a couple of hundred miles. So how is it that this is the most credible and immediate threat that we should spend hundreds of millions of dollars, potentially thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of lives of innocents in a war against Saddam Hussein while weapons inspectors are in there, when we have gotten what we proposed, which is let us go in there and find if he has weapons of mass destruction. Give the process time to work. There is no reason to rush to war with potentially catastrophic results and one that is certainly not going to help us with these pressing domestic problems at home. In fact, it is going to rob from that, since the President is now talking about a long-term occupation and rebuilding of Iraq similar to Japan after World War II despite the fact that, of course, basically their culture is not as integrated as that of Japan. In fact, the people who live in Iraq do not get along very well. There is a number of divisive factions. They have no tradition in democracy, and a long- term occupation and democracy-building in that area is going to be very problematic. So the President should focus on real steps to help real Americans with their real problems at home and real threats to our domestic integrity or our international security. Where is Osama bin Laden? Remember, dead or alive? Guess what. He is still alive. He is still planning attacks on the United States of America. The President needs to refocus his priorities.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oregon for leading us in this Special Order tonight to discuss the real problems confronting our Nation, which will get, we all fear, short shrift tomorrow night. The State of the Union is not sound. Millions of Americans and their families are not secure in their homes, not because of some huge new crime wave, not because of the threat of Saddam Hussein or any external threat to our Nation, but because of the deep recession into which our country is falling. My State has the highest unemployment rate in the Union. We have been dueling with Washington State to be number one or number two for more than a year. There is chronic unemployment, but it is not isolated to our States, it is all across the Nation. We have the highest unemployment rate in more than a decade. We have the most chronic unemployment we have seen in a quarter of a century in terms of the length of time people are out of work before they can find gainful employment. Tens of thousands of Americans have already extended their so-called extended Federal benefits, and the President has refused to give an additional extension, although there is a huge surplus of taxes that have been paid by businesses and workers sitting in the Unemployment Trust Fund. The President wants to hold onto it to spend for other things, like tax breaks for the wealthy. Most folks may not have noticed, but the United States Government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Fund is broke. It spent its entire reserves in the last year, and there is a whole huge new wave of corporate bankruptcy coming, with people's pensions at risk, and there is no more money in that fund. But what does the President have to say about this? Well, precious little. He is going to spend the entire Social Security surplus this year on tax breaks and other functions that do not relate to Social Security. Our States are going bankrupt. They are cutting services; slashing services. Now, the President, I think, will give some nod tomorrow night with his purported economic stimulus plan, but if we look at the plan, the centerpiece is taking away that horrible burden of taxes on dividends on a select group of stocks that pay dividends with the idea of doing away with double taxation. Well, many of the corporations that pay dividends do not pay any Federal income taxes. They have found the loopholes; they are incorporated in Bermuda. All those things the President supports and will not do anything about. So there is no double taxation issue. Who does the money go to? For the average Oregonian, at $32,000 a year, they will get $40. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, the average millionaire will get $45,000. Now, there are no credible economists who say that this has anything to do with an economic stimulus, but this is the most expensive part of and the centerpiece of the President's so-called economic stimulus plan to try to put people back to work. Even Alan Greenspan, who is perpetually apologizing for these types of policies, says he really does not think it will do anything to put people back to work or stimulate the economy, and it would be just as good to not do it at all. When the President was a candidate and we had a booming economy and a surplus, his answer as a candidate was tax cuts. Then when we had a slowing economy and a surplus, his answer was tax cuts. Now we have a devastated economy falling deeper and deeper into recession, and his answer is tax cuts, for a select few. There are better alternatives. Some of those will be discussed here on the floor tonight. I have discussed those at other times, and I do not have time to go into it now, but there are better alternatives to really invest in this country and its people and put people back to work. Finally, to the war. Osama bin Laden, who was going to be brought back dead or alive, is alive and is plotting further attacks on the United States. Afghanistan, which was going to be made into a country that would recover and not be made a safe haven for terrorists, has now begun to set up terrorist training camps again. The Axis of Evil, Korea, is building more nuclear weapons, they already have them, and more long-range missiles that can hit the United States. Iran is close to having nuclear weapons. And yet the President and his staff are focused on Saddam Hussein and the horrible threat he poses. Actually, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and all those people came into office with President Bush II wanting to refight the first war. This has nothing to do with 9-11 or any purported ties to terrorists. This is old business, an old agenda by old men, none of whom has ever fought in a war or ever worn a uniform and fought in anger. So I would hope that the President's State of the Union will not fulfill all of these dire predictions that I have mentioned, but I fear it will. Tax cuts for the wealthy and a war are a nostrum for what fails our Nation and the problems that are confronting us.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and to congratulate Ruth Bascom of Eugene, Oregon. On January 31, 2003, the Eugene City Council will name a bicycle and walking trail system after Ms. Bascom to honor her for her determined advocacy, intelligent leadership, and inspired vision. The Ruth Bascom Riverbank Trail System is a testament to her indomitable spirit and her remarkable civic career. Ruth Bascom has an impressive record of public service, with over thirty years of active participation. She has been Mayor and City Councilor; served as a member of the Alton Baker Park Advisory Committee, the Mayor's Bicycle Committee, and the Governor's Bicycle Advisory Committee; was president of the Youth Symphony Board and the League of Women Voters; and worked on a variety of campaigns dedicated to enhancing our community. Ruth Bascom gets things done--and done well. She has helped shape Eugene and is directly responsible for the award-winning bikeway system. In her many civic roles, she tirelessly fostered the riverbank trail system through design, funding, and construction phases. Her wholehearted and unwavering support for a city-wide bicycle-pedestrian trail system rallied community members, elected officials, and staff to her vision. The opening of the East Bank Trail completes the Ruth Bascom Riverbank Trail System. The project survived ups and downs and detours because Ms. Bascom focused considerable energy, enthusiasm, and ingenuity on its success and delivered the necessary plans, funds, and allies. Ruth Bascom is an exemplary citizen activist. I am pleased to offer her the hearty congratulations and warm thanks she so richly merits.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I don't have to lecture my colleagues on the difficult economic problems facing the country, state and local governments, and far too many of our constituents who have lost jobs or are losing benefits and support services due to budget pressures. We're all much too familiar with those facts. But, I was elected to be a voice for those who need help. And, Mr. Speaker, there are 18,000 Oregonians who need help and this bill isn't going to provide it. I'm grateful that this bill will provide extended benefits for some 20,000 unemployed Oregonians who were at some stage of the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program that expired on December 28, 2002, and the 35,000 Oregonians that are expected to lose work between now and the end of May when this extension expires. However, the bill turns a cold shoulder on the 18,000 long-term unemployed Oregonians who have already exhausted 26 weeks of TEUC. The unemployment rate in Oregon has hovered between 7 and 8 percent for more than a year. Several counties have double digit unemployment rates, and new layoff are announced weekly. The workers of the Pacific Northwest need help. And we should give it to them. The Congressional Budget Office projects the national unemployment rate will remain at about six percent until the second half of 2003. The Oregon rate is expected to be higher than the national average. Unemployment insurance provides targeted and effective economic stimulus. These critical benefits increase consumer spending in the hardest hit areas and sustain and strengthen economic recovery. Fortunately, the federal unemployment insurance trust funds contain large reserves that can be used to strengthen TEUC without additional unemployment insurance taxes. I sat here today and listened to the debate on this legislation and heard member after member on the other side of the aisle say how important this legislation is and how much workers need this assistance, but we just can't afford to provide additional benefits for the long-term unemployed. That's not true, and it's unconscionable that we're not providing additional benefits for those who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves on the wrong side of this ``economic recovery,'' and haven't been able to find work. Somehow, we could afford to give members of Congress a generous 3.4 percent cost-of-living adjustment, but could only give senior citizens a paltry 1.4 percent increase. Somehow, there was money to throw all sorts of favors to corporate special interests at the end of the session, and there's money for more tax breaks for those earning more than $373,000 a year. Somehow, there was money to give President Bush's political appointee's bonuses at the end of the year, but we can't use the huge surpluses in the unemployment trust funds to give a hand to the 800,000 long-term unemployed who are trying to hang on to their homes, pay the heating bill, keep food on the table, and keep their families together. There's something very wrong with the priorities here.