Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. In May, the Appropriations Committee included language in the FY07 supplemental to impose requirements on the Department of Transportation before they open the U.S. border to Mexican trucks, giving them free range across the United States of America. This language by the committee was the first step in ensuring that the Department of Transportation considered safety and security ramifications before allowing cross-border traffic and before rushing into a pilot. And unfortunately, the Bush administration immediately declared that they were in compliance with the law, making no changes in their program. This is a paper-based program. They have not inspected physically one Mexican truck. They have not interviewed one Mexican driver. In Mexico, they have no system of drug testing, unlike the United States of America, and no certified drug-testing laboratories, unlike the United States of America. They have no hours of service in Mexico. Mexican drivers are frequently required to drive as long as 72 hours. They take drugs to do it. They freely admit that in the Mexican press.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Vice President Cheney, in his usual arrogant way, refused to disclose the deliberations of his secret energy task force that gave billions to big oil and increased our dependence on OPEC. He claimed executive privilege. Then his office illegally disclosed the identity of a secret undercover CIA officer, Valerie Plame. They claimed executive privilege. Now, we find that the Vice President is mishandling classified information in volumes in violation of Executive Branch regulations. And we have the astonishing assertion that the Vice President is not part of the executive branch. Rip up those civics text books kids. Dick Cheney is above the law and the Constitution of the United States, according to his attorney. Or perhaps he's just that higher power that George Bush refers to every time he has to make a difficult decision like launching an unneeded war in Iraq.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I will be brief, given the generosity of the chairman. This amendment would prohibit the Selective Service from conducting a full-blown nationwide exercise of a mock draft. This House just voted less than 2 years ago, 404-2, against reinstitution of the draft. There is no scenario under which the Pentagon, the White House, or this Congress believes we are going to return to a draft. These funds would be wasted with this exercise. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. In conclusion then, we have a bit of hypocrisy here. They want to complain at the same time as they put the projects in their pocket and they go home and brag about it. They brag about how they want to cut spending in Washington, and they brag about the money they bring home. I believe in investment in America in many ways, and this bill is making many crucial investments in America.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Republicans be allowed to voluntarily strip their $45 million of earmarks from this bill, which would save one-quarter of the amount of money that the gentleman is trying to save by cutting all the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

Mr. DeFAZIO. We have heard speaker after speaker on the Republican side say how concerned they are about spending. The minority whip stood in the well and castigated the Democrats for spending. He has $950,000 of earmarks in the bill. The woman from Colorado has $150,000 of earmarks in the bill. If the gentleman is so sincere, let's entertain a unanimous-consent request. Mr. Chairman, is it in order to make a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, to the point of order, again, the gentleman is technically correct. But again, unlike the previous amendment, this amendment not only does not cost money, it actually benefits the Federal Government and the Federal taxpayers. I wish the gentleman would reconsider that point and not target this because of an earlier debate on a different issue having to do with spending levels. This actually would save the taxpayers money. I would ask that the gentleman reconsider his objection.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my remaining minute.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the other side is reserving a point of order on this because of a previous objection to an amendment which would have allocated $425 million into the Safe and Secure Rural Schools program, a program which I very much support. I am on the authorizing committee and I can assure them that the authorizing committee is determined to move forward on, one of the authorizing committees at least, in the near future. In the last Congress, the Resources Committee did act and the Agriculture Committee did not on reauthorizing this program. So we are engaging in that process in good faith and hope to be working with our friends on the Appropriations Committee in the not- too-distant future to extend this program for a number of years as we phase it down. But in the interim, the Appropriations Committee and this Congress did, in the emergency supplemental, approve 1 year of temporary funding, which was excellent. It staved off disasters in county after county in terms of closed jails, loss of rural sheriffs patrols and many, many other vital services. But, unfortunately, in doing that there was an oversight, and it is a simple oversight, easily rectified if there is not an objection. One of the most beneficial parts for the Federal taxpayers generally beyond the services that are provided within the counties and school districts across America is the Resource Advisory Committees, committees made up of a broad cross-section of communities across the Western United States, both environmental, timber interests, general community members, who have come forward, worked collaboratively, and have put 15 percent of the funds under the program, reinvested it back into the Federal lands, providing tremendous benefits ecologically to those lands, economically, in terms of thinning projects and other things, things that were not within the budget of the United States Forest Service or the Department of the Interior in the case of the O&C lands. Unfortunately, since these committees, which are widely applauded in a bipartisan way across the Western United States, were not reauthorized, this language simply would give them authorization to monitor the ongoing activities. It is extraordinarily noncontroversial, and it would be extraordinarily regrettable if in some sort of a misplaced tit for tat there was an objection to this bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. My amendment presents the Members with a very simple choice: Do we want to continue to fund a government agency whose mission is obsolete, and whose expertise the President, the Pentagon and the House have all said will never be called upon, or do you want to fund a program that has a presence in every State in the Union and the territories, and helps small businesses, creates jobs and returns $2.82 in Federal revenue for every dollar invested? Seems a simple choice to me. Perhaps not, but we'll see when we get to the vote. Thirty years ago Jimmy Carter created and reactivated the Selective Service System. Now, he said this was symbolic, to send a message to the Soviet Union which had invaded Afghanistan. Well, today the United States of America is in Afghanistan in pursuit of the Taliban and al Qaeda and attempting to pacify that country. Surely that symbolism is no longer needed. No one, no one in this House, two people, in fact, the last time we voted, said they wanted to reinstitute the draft. No one downtown at the administration says they want to reinstitute the draft. No one at the Pentagon says, under any scenario, that they envision reinstituting the draft. They prefer the All-Volunteer Force. So if we were to transfer $10 million from this obsolete, Cold War, symbolic bureaucracy which has no function in today's society, in today's world, and is not necessary for today's readiness, we could create tens of thousands of jobs across America and assist small businesses to begin to create even more jobs. I believe it's a very simple choice: $10 million from Selective Service, and add $10 million to the SBDC. The Congressional Budget Office says it's budget-neutral. There are 1,100 SBDC offices, all 50 States, DC., Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands. They're a collaborative effort. This is not a bureaucracy. This is not dumping money into the maw of Washington, DC. State, local governments, the private sector and education community serve more than 1.3 million small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs a year. Every Federal dollar, as I said earlier, invested in Small Business Development Corporations yields $2.82 in additional revenue to the Treasury. A new business is opened by an SBDC in-depth client every 33 minutes in the United States of America. Our entrepreneurs need this help. Similarly, these clients create a new job every 7 minutes and generate $100,000 in sales every 9 minutes. What a great return on a Federal investment, to help American entrepreneurs put people to work in this country and make us competitive in the international community. In my home State of Oregon, the SBDC has created 3,300 new jobs, generated new wages of more than $53 million. The SBDC has served more than 6,000 small businesses in Oregon alone. Across the Nation those numbers are obviously much larger. The Association of Small Business Development Centers requested funding of $110 million for SBDCs for fiscal year 2008. That would essentially provide a catch-up for all the years in which their budget was restrained or cut by the previous Congress and the administration. That could create 110,000 new jobs, save an additional 110,000 jobs, and make $11.7 billion in new sales, preserve $8.4 billion in existing sales, and obtain $4.5 billion in financing to grow businesses, and generate $310 million in new Federal revenues for economic growth. This, I believe, is a great investment in America. We do not need to continue dumping maw down the bureaucracy of the Selective Service System. They've been incompetent since day 1. Commercial databases could better provide the data we need if ever a draft were needed. And even if a draft were needed, guess what? We have no training capacity, so the people who were drafted would have to wait 6 months to a year in any case. So we don't need an active, on-the-edge Selective Service System in this country for a draft that no longer exists and only two Members of the previous Congress thought should exist. I believe this is a commonsense amendment. Put Selective Service in deep stand-by and help the Small Business Development Corporation live up to its full potential creating jobs and economic potential for this country. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, while Memorial Day is the traditional beginning of the summer vacation and travel season for all Americans, it's going to be a gloomy day across America. No, I'm not a weather forecaster. It's going to be a gloomy day because of record extortionate and manipulated prices at the pump. Guess what? Crude oil prices are down over a year ago, but somehow gas is up 50 cents a gallon at the pump. How is that? The refineries are making four times, four times their normal margin on refining. Why is that? They said, oh, well, gosh, we couldn't have known people were going to start buying gas around Memorial Day. We had to close down some of the refineries to maintain them and to clean them. Does Exxon translate into Enron? Remember when Enron was doing the same thing in California? High demand, shut down the generating plants. Exxon, high demand, shut down the refineries. It's time to stop the price gouging by Big Oil. Break them up. They aren't competitive, they're colluding.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, to address criticisms raised on the first amendment, this would not prevent retaliation for an attack upon U.S. troops. It would not prevent going into Iran to retrieve captured troops. But what it would do is say that we have not authorized, as some in this administration allege, a preemptive war against Iran because of the Iraq resolution or the 9/11 resolution. That simply is not true. They were not that all encompassing. Further, it would also challenge a letter I had on April 18, 2002, from then-White House counsel, the esteemed Mr. Gonzales, who claims that the President has unilateral war-making authority under the Constitution. No. This simply restates the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Act. It is law, 93-148, and article I, section 8, of the Constitution. This is not about whether or not military action against Iran is wise or necessary. Regardless of how you come down on that question, I urge you to support the amendment. It is not about binding the President's hands so he couldn't retaliate if they are involved in attacking our troops or capturing our troops in the area. It allows, as does the War Powers Act, in the event of any attack by Iran on the United States, its territories or possessions or Armed Forces, it is fully within the President's purview to respond. There are many who are concerned about the growing nuclear capability of Iran, and I share those concerns. But the question that some day possibly in the future they might have a missile that could work, they might have nuclear weapons, does not dictate that we should have a preemptive war now; and if the President wants to make the case that that warrants a preemptive war, he should come to the war-making body, the Congress of the United States, make that case, present his evidence and have a lawful vote. Plain and simple, that is all this amendment does, although I am certain other allegations will be made.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The President is not reading in full the War Powers Act. It says the President's constitutional powers ``are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.'' My amendment actually allows that exact language. If our troops are attacked, if we are attacked, if our territories are attacked, then the President could retaliate. So I am restating the war powers. In this case we also heard about a declaration of war from the gentlewoman from Nevada. The Congress has the authority to take up a declaration of war tonight, tomorrow, anytime it deems fit against Iran. Nothing in this amendment would prevent a Congress from declaring war. It is just saying if you want to have a preemptive war under the Constitution of the United States, a preventive war, then you need to come to Congress under article I, section 8. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States and the powers of this branch, vote for this amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. My good friend from Florida, the ranking Republican member of the committee, made a point that NAFTA was promoted by and passed during the Clinton administration. That's true, and I have continually castigated that administration and that President for that act. However, he does need to remember that the agreement was negotiated by the first Bush administration, adopted by the Clinton administration, unfortunately, and to the discredit of the Clinton administration, and passed the House of Representatives with a large majority of Republican votes. Yes, it was a Democratic House, but a very substantial majority of the Democrats opposed the legislation. So this is truly a bipartisan problem. But if he wants to attribute blame, the Republican Members of the House would bear that, and not the Democratic Members, although we were in the majority. He also talked about unfair portions of the agreement. Well, the President has the authority to give 6 months' notice at any time that we are going to withdraw in order to require renegotiation of provisions of the agreement. So if this President felt any of the provisions were unfair, or they felt they were under duress to allow the Mexican trucks into this country, they have the tools to renegotiate that agreement. I wish they would use those tools. But they won't because this administration is all about killing off American jobs and American labor. That's what this is ultimately intended to do. You can get a Mexican truck driver to work for a heck of a lot less than a Teamster in the United States. You can get a Mexican dock worker to work for a heck of a lot less than a longshoreman in the United States. That's what this ultimately is designed to do. The dream of the NAFTA proponents is that the goods, all the goods, the things we don't make in America anymore, will be imported from China to a port in Mexico, avoiding the U.S. ports, the U.S. longshoremen, and loaded on Mexican trucks, avoiding U.S. trucking companies and U.S. drivers and brought up into America's heartland. This bill is about protecting the safety of the American traveling public. That's what's before us today. I would love to renegotiate and revisit NAFTA any day of the week, but today we are all about the safety of the American public. That's what we are ensuring with this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, for 5\1/2\ minutes.