Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1195.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1195) to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the Chair. Well, Vice President Cheney was in form last weekend in Florida addressing a small group behind closed doors. He attacked the House of Representatives for passing the Iraq Accountability Act. I am not certain whether it is because he objects to the fact that we are going to make this administration review the readiness of our troops, their equipment, before they're rushed to Iraq in an attempt to escalate the war. They don't want that kind of accountability, because it failed our troops, from day one, on equipment and readiness. And then maybe it's the other part, the part where we are going to demand accountability of the Iraqi Government. Time and time again President Bush sets benchmarks. ``Those benchmarks will be met.'' They are never met. There has to be a diplomatic and political component. You cannot resolve a civil war with military force in Iraq. But time and time again the Bush administration has let the Iraqi Government skate. This bill says they will meet the President's own chosen, President Bush and al Maliki's, own chosen guidelines and benchmarks or we will begin to bring our troops home. Plain and simple, not a war without end, not a war that will be settled by future Presidents, as George Bush said a year ago, but if this administration and the Iraqi Government fail to do what's necessary for our troops, we are not going to strand them in the middle of a civil war. But the Vice President objects to those things. He says if they really support the troops, then we should take them at their word and expect them to meet the needs of our military on time, in full, no strings attached. Let's review the administration's record on those issues. Let's review how the Bush-Cheney administration met the needs of our troops. First of all, it was an unnecessary war. They were pursuing a necessary war against al Qaeda, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden. Remember them? Dead or alive? Dead or alive? They abandoned that war for an unnecessary war launched under false pretenses in Iraq. Now, something called the Office of Special Plans phonied up the intelligence. Dick Cheney put together the Office of Special Plans with some of his own hand-picked people, I think one of whom is now on the way to jail, in fact, Scooter Libby. In fact, he personally, unprecedented for a Vice President, kept visiting the CIA and saying, no, they didn't have the intelligence right yet. I.e., they didn't say what he wanted. Niger yellow cake, Chalabi, all that stuff. He was so wrong. And then he said, ``Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.'' Vice President Cheney in August of 2002 as he was pushing us toward war. But then on the eve of the war, even after their myths about weapons of mass destruction, the yellow cake, the aluminum tubes had started to fall apart, he said, ``We believe that Saddam has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Vice President Cheney. A man who has been so wrong and put our troops in harm's way unnecessarily, jeopardized the security of the United States by distracting us from the real fight in Afghanistan, challenges this Congress on the Iraq Accountability Act? No, I think last November the American people started to ask about accountability for him and his supposed boss, George Bush. And then let's look at their military planning. General Shinseki, a good man. They fired him. It was said we didn't need 350,000 people. Rummy said, ``Oh, don't worry. We can do it with 100,000 or so.'' Shinseki said, that would lead to strife, civil war and chaos. He was right. They fired him. But presidential economic adviser Larry Lindsey said, ``It's going to be very expensive. Very expensive.'' No, Cheney and his cohorts said, ``No, don't worry. Iraq can pay for it themselves.'' Well, we are now at $2 billion a week, hundreds of billions of dollars on this war. So wrong. And then our troops, how did they serve them? Vice President Cheney again, ``We believe we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. I think it will go relatively quick. Weeks rather than months.'' So they didn't give our men and women body armor, didn't have armored Humvees, they didn't have the equipment they needed. Congress had to uncover those scandals after we heard from the troops in the field. We had to provide it over the objections of this administration, and this guy has the gall to say we aren't serving the troops as they want to keep our troops mired down forever in the middle of a civil war? This is extraordinary. And, most recently, Vice President Cheney last year, no, 2 years ago, ``I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.'' I guess he still believes that. These people have done an extraordinary disservice to our troops, our country, our national security and the fight against true terrorism that attacked us on 9/11. We will not be distracted or bullied anymore. The Iraq Accountability Act is a strong response to their mismanagement and it offers the United States a way to bring this war to a successful conclusion and soon. Bring the troops home.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair and my good friend for yielding. This bill will end the war in Iraq. This is the first enforceable challenge to the President's plan to escalate and continue a stay-the- course, open-ended commitment to a war, a war that was launched with massive deception, and an unnecessary war. One gentleman questioned Congress' power. Congress' power under Article I, section 8 is very broad. We have the ability to modify the original authorization for war, and that is essentially what we are doing here by saying there will be an end to this war. A year ago, just 1 year ago this March, the President said it will be up to ``future Presidents,'' plural, not just the next one, plural, ``and future governments of Iraq'' to determine when our troops might come home. That is not acceptable. Our troops are mired in the midst of a civil war. Oh, they have dragged out the old, If we don't fight them there, we'll fight them here. Well, unfortunately, the Republicans are contradicted by the Bush-appointed National Intelligence Director who says al Qaeda is not looking to have a base in Iraq and al Qaeda would be extraordinarily unlikely to attempt, and has no capability to attack the United States from Iraq; but they are looking to move back into Afghanistan, Afghanistan where we should have stayed focused, a legitimate war against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden. Remember him? Dead or alive; dead or alive. He is still planning attacks against the United States of American, and Bush wants to mire us down day after day in a civil war. The Iraqis have to want to end this war. This bill will give them a motivation to begin to lay aside their ages' old grudges and begin to meaningfully cooperate and coordinate and share their oil wealth. That is the only way this is going to end. It is a civil war. They have been fighting it for 1,400 years. We need this bill. We need to motivate the Iraqis to bring an end to this war, and we need to refocus on the real threats to America.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago, Vice President Cheney, on the looming war in Iraq, of which he was a principal architect, he and his staff are responsible for the manipulation and manufacturing of intelligence that misled people into believing there was a threat of weapons of mass destruction or there was some ties to 9/11. Neither of those things was true. Vice President Cheney said we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks, rather than months, said Vice President Cheney, and he still does not believe that he was wrong. He is still a principal architect of the surge, of an escalation of the war in Iraq, of continuing a war without end, a war that President Bush said last November it will be up to the next President to determine when U.S. troops might come home. A failed strategy, a strategy that fails our troops. Our troops have done all that we have asked and more under difficult conditions. They started with inadequate equipment, and Congress had to push the administration to give them the equipment they needed. They have been put on brutal rotations, stop/loss orders, and they have done more than was asked. But the leadership has failed. Donald Rumsfeld is gone. He should have gone a very long time ago. Vice President Cheney is still there pulling the strings. We will be greeted as liberators, he said. Then the President two months later said major combat operations have ended, 1st of May. Nearly 3,000 American troops have died since the President gave that speech. Over 12,000 have been seriously wounded, very seriously wounded; and yet their answer is more of the same, stay the course, to escalate the conflict. They will not engage in meaningful diplomacy, and they will not change direction in Iraq. Their strategy will not bring a successful end to this war. They are now again trying to tie it to 9/11 and al Qaeda. Yet they are contradicted, in fact, by the Director of National Intelligence, a Bush appointee. When he was asked, Mike McConnell, if al Qaeda would establish itself in Iraq and they would launch attacks from there, I would not go so far as to say al Qaeda would necessarily believe that. They want to reestablish their base and their objective would be in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? Remember Osama bin Laden? Remember 9/11? Remember the Taliban? They are still out there. They are planning and plotting. Afghanistan is going in a bad direction because the President diverted our attention, our troops, our resources away from a battle that was supported by all the major nations in the world to eradicate those who had attacked us so grievously on 9/11 into a discretionary war in Iraq, and still, the President would put the emphasis on Iraq. His National Security Adviser says this is a charade what they would do in the House of Representatives, a charade. If it is a charade, why are they fighting so hard? For the first time, Congress is going to exert its constitutional responsibility as a third and coequal branch to say enough failed leadership is enough and we want a new direction. The Speaker came to the well earlier and laid that out in detail, what that new direction would be, and this bill that we will vote on later this week would move us in that new direction. That is not a charade. That is the first meaningful challenge to the failure of leadership by Vice President Cheney and George Bush that have put that region at risk, that has put American troops in the middle of a civil war, which is now admitted by the Pentagon. We did not go there to be referees in the middle of a 1,400-year-old sectarian conflict in a civil war. The Iraqis are going to have to resolve those issues themselves. I wrote to the President 2 years ago February and said you need to set meaningful timelines to force the Iraqis to come together and begin to resolve their differences. They still do not want to do that. Americans should not be the surrogates. We should not be in the middle. Our troops should not be in the middle. This bill is extraordinarily important. Yes, the President might veto it, but we are going to challenge him again and again and again until we get a new direction that better serves our country, our troops, that region and the world.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the Chair. I am going to continue the discussion the previous Member started with perhaps a little different orientation and, that is, our dependence upon oil. I would agree with the gentleman that we need to break our dependence upon imported oil. We need to look toward a more energy-efficient future. That is going to mean new sources of energy, new technologies. I am on a number of bills to make those investments. But more immediately, I want to talk about the situation we are in today. On the path to that more energy-efficient future, we don't need to be fleeced by the oil cartels, which is what is going on now. I am not just talking about OPEC but I'll get to them in a moment, but I'm getting to the big oil companies--ExxonMobil, record profits last year, $3.2 billion a month, $40 billion for the year, $109 million a day, $4.6 million an hour of profits for one corporation. Throughout the industry, it was repeated. Now, the President, an oil man, a failed oil man, and the Vice President from Halliburton, another oil man, say there's nothing they can do about it, nothing the government can do about it. This is just market forces. Market forces. Hmm. Let's see. You make gasoline out of crude oil so if the price of crude oil goes up, the price of gasoline goes up. Yeah, I understand that. That's good. The price of crude oil is up a whopping 3 percent over last year. That is about inflation. That's not too bad. That's today on the market. Unfortunately, the price of gasoline on the west coast is up 20 percent. Now, where did the rest of that market force come into play? No, what we have here, plain and simple, is price gouging, market manipulation and collusion. A number of years ago there was a famous memo in the industry that said, you know, the refineries are not particularly profitable, but if the industry were to engage in mergers, buy out the independent refiners, close them down and decrease the refinery capacity in America, that could become a very profitable sector. It is. In fact, profits in the refining sector because of collusion by Big Oil are up 250 percent. It isn't the guy at the corner gas station who's making the money. It's the corporate execs in a vertically integrated industry which they're manipulating. The same way that Enron manipulated the energy markets in California to drive up the price, Big Oil is doing it and they're doing it in the western United States right today and across America. They're building up toward that orgy of price gouging that happens every year around Memorial Day and during the summer driving season. And they say, ``Oh, these are just market forces.'' These are not market forces and this government needs to address this in a number of ways. We need to file a complaint against OPEC. The gentleman before me mentioned them. They get together, they collude, they decide to constrain the price and drive up the price of crude oil. That's where this all starts. Well, it just happens that a number of the major OPEC producers are in the World Trade Organization. Our President, a big free trader, wants rules-based trade. Well, guess what, the rules don't allow OPEC to do that. But will this President file a complaint against OPEC? No. I have written to him a number of times and said, President Bush, they're violating the World Trade Organization. File a complaint. People complain about the United States there all the time. Why don't we use that tool to benefit our consumers. No, the President refuses to do that. My bill would force the President to file legitimate complaints and break up the OPEC cartel. That would help. But then we have got to go after the big oil companies themselves. Impose a windfall profits tax on these companies, unless they are investing in expanding refinery capacity--which they cut in order to increase the profitability--exploration or alternative fuels. Make our vehicles more efficient. Give incentives to consumers to buy more efficient vehicles. Mandate new fleet fuel economy standards. Put a ban on more mergers by the oil industry. In fact, my bill would name a commission to investigate the market power of Big Oil and maybe we have to think about breaking them up and turning this back into a somewhat competitive industry. Yes, we need to move toward a more energy-efficient future, but we don't need to be price-gouged on the way to that goal. And that's what is happening today. So I am introducing a package of bills oriented toward market manipulation, price gouging by Big Oil and OPEC, and also bills that would give consumers an incentive and actually help consumers to purchase more efficient vehicles in the interim and also push Detroit and other manufacturers toward making more efficient vehicles. They won't go there until we push them. We had a big fight over fleet fuel economy standards. I am very sympathetic to American workers. I remember the guys in from Ford, and they said, You don't understand. The execs told us, if you make them make more efficient vehicles, they'll lay us off. Guess what: They all got laid off because Ford didn't make more efficient vehicles. It's time for some action on the part of this Congress and this government to defend American consumers and lead us toward a more energy-efficient future without being price-gouged on the way there.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. We are talking about a Federal mandate here. It is good policy. We need to protect our critical clean water resources. But this is a Federal mandate put on our local communities. The Republicans, for 12 years, have failed to reauthorize this law and have consistently cut funding to our communities in the face of this unfunded Federal mandate. The backlog has grown from $300 to $500 billion over the next 20 years to maintain, rehab and, yes, do some new construction for population growth. We have here a very aptly named ``SAP'' from the White House. The White House says $14 billion is excessive. Let's see, that is about 3 to 5 percent of the demonstrated need in this unfunded mandate on our communities, and the White House says, 3 to 5 percent, that's excessive. And then they go on with this ideological claptrap: ``It will distort market signals by discouraging utilities and their consumers from moving toward full cost pricing, and they will delay undertaking projects.'' My community is under consent agreements under law, under Federal law to do this. They can't delay. What a bunch of claptrap. They are trying to take care of Wall Street here and not Main Street. Wall Street wants to be able to issue these bonds in the private sector. They don't want the government to help these communities. They can make a little bit of commission there. And they want to drive down the wages of the workers. Why do you hate the middle class so much? Why don't you think people should earn a living wage? What claptrap. ``The market should set wages altogether. We shouldn't have a minimum wage.'' Come on, what planet are you people from? Who do you represent? Do you represent the special interests, or do you represent average and working families in this country? Look at the communities in my district. Coburg, a thousand people; $95 debt retirement, plus user fees. Not exactly a wealthy community. Sweet Home, 7,500 people, a depressed timber community in the mountains, $220 a month if they don't get some help for their fees. Gardner, 340 people on the coast; $2.5 million for 340 people. And the White House says helping them would be excessive and it would distort the market. Why do you hate the middle class and our communities so much? And guess what, businesses are going to suffer, too, if we don't make this investment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 247, a bill to rename Forest Service trail number 3590, which circumnavigates the world-renowned Waldo Lake, as the ``Jim Weaver Loop Trail'' in honor of former Congressman Jim Weaver. The legislation would also designate this 22 mile trail as a national recreational trail under the National Trails System Act. This legislation has special significance to me because Mr. Weaver was not only my predecessor as the representative of Oregon's Fourth Congressional District, but he was also my boss--both here in Washington, D.C. and back home in the district--and is a friend. I am pleased that the legislation is cosponsored and supported by all of Oregon's five House members. In addition, it is supported by the Forest Service and a number of local interest groups. Jim Weaver has been an Oregonian for nearly sixty years. He represented the southwest portion of the state in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1975 to 1987. During his time in Congress, Mr. Weaver made natural resource conservation one of his signature pursuits. He was a tireless advocate for outdoor recreation, and the protection of some of Oregon's most treasured natural features. He was the leading force responsible for the inclusion of new wilderness areas north of Waldo Lake in the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984, and worked tirelessly with then Senator Hatfield to ensure that these lands received protection. The 10 square mile Waldo Lake is considered ultraoligotrophic, meaning it's ranked as one of the purest bodies of water on Earth, and is comparable to distilled water. According to the Forest Service's Water Quality Report, two of the main reasons for its purity are the low levels of sedimentation and lack of development in the area, two characteristics which should be credited to Mr. Weaver's efforts. Waldo Lake and the surrounding area, including the loop trail, is a popular recreation destination. Naming this trail for Mr. Weaver is a fitting tribute to the legacy of Congressman Weaver and his commitment to protecting Waldo Lake and the surrounding area. This legislation gives long-overdue recognition to Congressman Weaver and forever associates his name with an area that he loves and worked hard to protect. I want to thank Chairman Rahall and his Staff Director, Jim Zoia, and Ranking Member Young for their efforts in dicharging the bill for today's floor action. I look forward to the Senate taking up the bill expeditiously, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal leave of absence, I was unable to vote on passage of the Small Business Tax Relief Act, H.R. 976, rollcall vote No. 102. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I have listened to some of the debate on this resolution. I have been disappointed by the misleading talking points and faulty analysis that have been repeatedly used by those who support the President's escalation of the war in Iraq. Many speakers have tied Iraq to the broader war against al-Qaeda. These are two distinct wars. Iraq had not declared war on the U.S. Al- Qaeda had. Iraq did not attack the U.S. Al-Qaeda did. Iraq did not harbor al-Qaeda leaders. The Taliban in Afghanistan did. By shifting military and intelligence resources out of Afghanistan before the Taliban and al-Qaeda were wiped out the administration has actually undermined the important war against al-Qaeda. The administration's blunders mean the U.S. is at risk of losing two wars at once: Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Afghanistan is salvageable and winnable. The war in Iraq will not be won by military means alone. Vigorous diplomatic efforts within the Gulf region, in addition to a political realignment within Iraq will be necessary . U.S. intelligence agencies, including military intelligence agencies, have refuted the claim that the conflict in Iraq is driven by al-Qaeda. It is not. The violence is driven by a civil war, primarily between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias. The recent National Intelligence Estimate should definitively put that issue to rest. Even the President has recognized that al Qaeda is not the driving force for violence in Iraq. In a speech on December 12, 2005, the President made important distinctions between the insurgent elements in Iraq. He mentioned ``rejectionists,'' which are mostly Sunnis who miss the privileged status they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein. He mentioned ``Saddamists'', who are former regime elements who want to return to power. Again, they are Sunni. And, he mentioned foreign terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda, which even the President acknowledged was the ``smallest'' element of the insurgency. The one huge element he left out was nationalist Shias, such as those influenced by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The President and his allies justify the continuing U.S. presence in Iraq by claiming that if we don't fight there, we'll have to fight here at home. However, the Iraqi Sunni rejectionists, Saddamists, and nationalist Shias, who combined make up the vast bulk of the insurgents and militias committing violence in Iraq, have no interest and no capability to attack the U.S. homeland. They just want U.S. military forces out of their own country. U.S. forces are a target of convenience in their escalating civil conflict. It is deceitful to argue that if we don't fight there, we will fight them in the streets of the United States. The war in Iraq is not a part of the war against al Qaeda. And, in fact the war in Iraq is undermining our fight against al Qaeda. Some in this debate have made the ridiculous argument that if the U.S. leaves Iraq that somehow Osama bin Laden will take control and establish a safe haven for terrorists to attack the U.S. There is no chance that the Shias and Kurds, who represent around 80 percent of the population in Iraq, will allow Sunni foreign terrorist elements like al-Qaeda to take over the country. Even many Sunnis have grown tired of foreign terrorists operating in Iraq, with several Sunni tribes fighting al Qaeda operatives. Iran and al Qaeda are the primary beneficiaries of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the two entities that most want the U.S. to stay there. With respect to Iran, the U.S. removed a threatening neighbor of Iran's and helped put in power a fellow Shiite regime, in addition to tying down the U.S. military and sowing international discord that has limited our options in confronting Iran's nuclear program. With respect to al Qaeda, U.S. intelligence agencies have noted that Iraq is serving as a training ground for terrorists and a recruiting poster that is swelling the ranks of terrorist organizations and inspiring attacks around the world. It is past time to end the open-ended commitment the President has made in Iraq. As long as the U.S. military remains stuck with the President's pledge of open-ended support, Iraqi politicians and security forces will use the U.S. presence as a crutch. They will continue to fail to take the necessary steps to solve their differences, establish an effective and inclusive government, end sectarian violence, and create the foundation for a secure and prosperous society. Democracy and stability cannot be imposed on unwilling parties. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said on Meet the Press, a stable, pluralistic democracy in Iraq is everyone's second choice except ours. The Shias want power for themselves. The Sunnis want power. And the Kurds want power and independence. What they don't want to do is share that power. The President's stay-the-course, more-of- the-same, status quo policy provides no incentive for the parties to reach the political compromises that are necessary. Negotiating a timeline for bringing home U.S. troops with responsible parties in the Iraqi government would also boost the Iraqi government's legitimacy and claim to self-rule, and force the Iraqi government to take responsibility for itself and its citizens. Negotiating a withdrawal time line and strategy with the Iraqi government could, more than possibly anything else, improve the standing of the Iraqi government in the eyes of its own people, a significant achievement in a region in which the standing of rulers and governments is generally low. As the Iraqi National Security Advisor, Mowaffak al-Rabaie wrote in the Washington Post on June 20, 2006, the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq, ``will help the Iraqis who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. It will remove psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis joined the so- called resistance in the first place.'' He went on to write, ``Moreover, the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people . . . the drawdown of foreign troops will strengthen our fledgling government to last the full four years it is supposed to.'' Being confronted with the reality of a U.S. withdrawal should force the Iraqi factions to reach the political compromises necessary to move their country forward. If not, there is no reason to prolong the U.S. involvement in Iraq if we want a stable country more than the Iraqi people and their elected leaders do. The U.S. cannot force Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to make peace or to act for the common good. They have been in conflict for 1,400 years. Nor should the U.S. military be forced to remain in Iraq essentially as an army for one side of a civil war. Supporters of escalating the war may pretend that they're doing it for the Iraqis, but large majorities of both Sunnis and Shias approve of attacks against U.S. troops and want us to bring them home. The President believes that the U.S. needs to escalate the war in Iraq by sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. I think that is a mistake. It will not bring stability to Iraq, and I oppose it. That is why I will vote for the resolution on the floor this week. The administration blunders in Iraq are well-known. They went in with too few troops against the advice of military leaders like General Shinseki. They disbanded the Iraqi army. They failed to understand the ethnic tensions and power bases in Iraq. They purged the Iraqi government of the bureaucratic experience necessary to have a functioning government, among others. I do not believe there is any level of U.S. troops that could stabilize Iraq at this point and resolve the underlying ages old sectarian conflicts. The time when more troops might have made a lasting difference has come and gone. There might be a small, temporary reduction in the chaos in Iraq, but the escalation will not solve the deep and underlying political conflicts that are preventing a long-term resolution to the violence. The administration already increased the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad last summer in Operation Together Forward and has increased the number of troops throughout Iraq at other times as well, yet the violence against our troops and Iraqi security forces and civilians continues to increase. Short-term improvements in security in the wake of U.S. troop increases have always given way to the long-term trend of increased violence and a growing civil war. Based on historical analysis, counterinsurgency experts, including General Petraeus, who is now the top U.S. General in Iraq but also recently rewrote the Army's counterinsurgency manual, estimate it takes around 20 U.S. troops per 1,000 inhabitants to successfully fight a counterinsurgency. To achieve that ratio in Baghdad alone would require 120,000 troops. Even with the increase proposed by the President, the U.S. would only have a third of that at best. For all of Iraq, it would require 500,000 troops. General Shinseki's original estimate that it would take several hundred thousands troops to invade and stabilize Iraq was based on this counterinsurgency literature. After the escalation we'll only have around 160,000. The bottom line is that a proposal to increase U.S. troop levels in Baghdad or Iraq more generally by more than 20,000 is not a serious effort to restore stability to Iraq. As General John Abizaid, then the head of all U.S. forces in the Middle East, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on November 15, 2006, ``I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.'' Essentially, the President is proposing to put more lives at risk with virtually no chance of changing the dynamic in Iraq. A better strategy for Iraq is to announce a timeline negotiated with the Iraqi government for bringing our troops home over the next 6 months to a year. The administration has always set timelines for political developments in Iraq--for elections, for the drafting of the constitution etc. The administration argued such timelines were necessary to focus the energy of Iraq's leaders and to force compromises. We need to do the same on the military side. In the interim, I have also proposed that U.S. troops be removed from front line combat positions in Iraqi cities and towns, turning over daily security patrols, interactions with citizens, and any offensive security actions to the Iraqis themselves. The training and equipping of Iraqi security forces should be accelerated and the sectarian balance must be improved. The U.S. must renounce any U.S. interest in constructing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. It is also important to accelerate reconstruction spending and grant the bulk of reconstruction contracts to local companies employing Iraqis rather than multinational corporations, whom have proven inefficient, inflexible, sometimes fraudulent and have even imported workers rather than employing Iraqis. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad should also be reduced to normal size and authority rather than establishing one of the largest embassies in the world. And, the U.S. must engage in robust diplomacy with all factions in Iraq, except the foreign terrorists and domestic al Qaeda elements, and work with Iraq's neighbors in an effort to bring about political reconciliation among Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds. Our troops have done all that has been asked of them in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is dead. His allies are on the run or in prison. The threat from WMDs in Iraq is nonexistent. Arguably, the war that Congress authorized has been won. Our troops should come home. Congress did not authorize U.S. troops to referee a civil war in Iraq.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. We are debating a simple, straightforward resolution. Clause 1 says, ``Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq.'' Every Member of Congress, despite outrageous allegations from the Republican side of the aisle from some, fully supports our troops and wants them to have the best equipment available to accomplish this mission. The disagreement is over the strategy that determines their mission. The Republicans don't want to have a debate over that strategy. They are trying to conflate support for the troops with support for the President's failed stay-the-course strategy dressed up with a little bit of escalation. But as President Theodore Roosevelt said during World War I, standing by a President, whether right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, it is morally treasonable to the American public. Supporting the troops doesn't require supporting the failed policies of this President and his administration. The Republicans don't want to debate the conduct of the war and the future strategy in Iraq. The former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, wrote a letter to his colleagues saying, ``This debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can or cannot win militarily. If we let the Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.'' So change the subject. Make things up. There is a massive propaganda effort on the part of many Republicans to distract and dissemble. They have trotted out the tired and thoroughly discredited catch phrase, ``If we don't fight them there, we will fight them here,'' invoking the specter of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. However, U.S. intelligence agencies, including military intelligence agencies, have refuted that claim that the conflict in Iraq is driven by al Qaeda. It is not. The violence is driven by a civil war primarily between the Iraqi Sunnis and Shias in a 1,400-year- old conflict, and our troops are caught in the middle of that civil war. The recent National Intelligence Estimate definitively put that issue to rest. The Iraqi Sunnis and Shias have no interest in or capability of attacking the United States. Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and their Taliban allies are still alive and active on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, thanks to the Bush administration and the massive diversion of our troops and resources from Afghanistan to an unnecessary war in Iraq. We do need to reinforce our troops in Afghanistan in order to end, once and for all, the threat posed by al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership. Our Nation and our troops were led into the war in Iraq by the distortion of intelligence, dissembling by the President, and senior members of the administration. It is time for the truth. The Bush administration has saddled our troops with a failed strategy in Iraq. It is that failed strategy that hurts our troops, not the words of those of us who have pointed out the obvious failures by this administration. I don't believe there is a level of U.S. troops that could stabilize Iraq at this point and resolve these underlying ages-old sectarian conflicts. The President remains optimistic. However, optimism is not a strategy. Staying the course and repeating the failures of the past is not a new strategy. Vice President Dick Cheney, despite the grim National Intelligence Estimate acknowledging the civil war in Iraq, dismissed suggestions that Iraq is a disaster, saying, ``The reality on the ground is that we have made major progress.'' Vice President Cheney. Optimism, stay the course, and delusion and denial, those do not serve our troops well. We need a real change in strategy. A better strategy is to announce a time line negotiated with the Iraqi Government to bring our troops home over the next 6 months to a year. The administration has always set time lines for political developments in Iraq, for the elections, for the drafting of the constitution. The administration argued such time lines were necessary to focus the energy of Iraq's leaders and to force compromises. We need to do the same on the military side. Negotiating a time line for bringing home U.S. troops with responsible parties in the Iraqi Government would boost the Iraqi Government's legitimacy and claim to self-rule, and force the Iraqi Government to take responsibility for itself and its citizens. Negotiating a withdrawal timeline and strategy with the Iraqi Government could more than possibly anything else improve the standing of the Iraqi Government in the eyes of its own people, a significant achievement in a region where the standing of rulers and governments is low, and it could also abate the insurgencies of both Sunnis and Shias. Too many Iraqis view us as an occupying force. Large majorities of both Sunnis and Shia want U.S. troops to withdraw, and approve of attacks on our men and women in uniform. The U.S. must engage, despite the reluctance of this administration, in robust diplomacy with all factions in Iraq, except the foreign terrorists and domestic al Qaeda elements and work with Iraq's neighbors in an effort to bring about political reconciliation among Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. Our troops have done all that has been asked of them in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is dead. His allies are on the run or in prison. The threat from WMDs is nonexistent. The war that has been authorized by Congress is won. The troops should come home. Congress should not authorize U.S. troops to referee a civil war in Iraq.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Even as the House debates the continuation of the failing Bush policies in Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney, the chief architect of the Iraq strategy, is beating the drums for a new war, a war with Iran. On Sunday, we had unidentified sources saying that the highest levels of the Iranian Government have directed use of weapons that are killing U.S. troops. No information was provided to substantiate the charge; administration officials yesterday deflected requests for more details, even as they repeatedly implied Tehran's involvement. It may or may not be true, but they have got a pretty bad record on intelligence. And now MG Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday that he has no information indicating Iran's government is directing the supply of lethal weapons to Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq. It sounds like the Iraq war intelligence all over again, phony intelligence leading us down the path to disastrous involvement. This has to stop. We start by voting against the escalation of the Bush policies in Iraq and begin to chart a new course.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, again just to reiterate, 4,400 school districts across America, I believe, of more than 800 counties are impacted. Critical law enforcement, public safety, search and rescue services, road maintenance services, schools, school class size, school infrastructure, all these things are on the cutting block. Benton County in my district tried a levy. It failed. Again, the cuts will be targeted at law enforcement and the sheriffs' offices. That is the biggest part of the general fund for virtually all my counties. They have no choice.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Right. And road services. And then in Coos County, more than half the general fund. Layoff notices have already gone out to 100 out of a 430-person workforce. Again, the deepest cuts, because it is the largest proportion of the budget, public safety, again, the loss of patrol deputies. It is going to be a very, very difficult time when tourists from all across America come to southwest Oregon this summer. If they are in an accident or have other problems in rural areas across large swaths of our State, there will be no immediate help for them.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, let me just mention two other counties. I have got a list here. I see another gentleman from Washington that we want to hear from him. But the most heavily impacted county in my district will be Josephine County, and their general fund revenues have dropped 69 percent. Again, a dramatic loss of public safety.

Mr. DeFAZIO. But of course it ends up in a lot of urban areas, so it is their problem, too.

Mr. DeFAZIO. But it is very serious. And there they are looking at the layoff of 16 of the 43 employees in the Curry County Sheriff's Office. And the sheriff would just then only be able to supervise the jail. There would no longer be a rural law enforcement, which obviously jeopardizes the traveling public and, again, raises the potential, as the gentleman from southern Oregon who represents also eastern Oregon pointed out, of a vacuum into which some of these gangs that are highly organized in this country, some of which have come across the border from Mexico could infiltrate for methamphetamine production or even growing marijuana.

Mr. DeFAZIO. And the Pacific Ocean, some of those would have to be house boats, I guess.

Mr. DeFAZIO. And just since the gentleman from California had referenced Del Norte County, I just want to talk about the county immediately to the north of that which would be Curry County, Oregon. Now, some people will say, look, why don't these counties just suck it up and take care of their own problems, raise the taxes? Well, in Oregon, our local property tax structure is dictated by the State because of a property tax initiative similar to the one that passed in California. The local commissioners do not have any options when it comes to that. Now, if Curry County was going to grow its way out of this problem, a county that today has 12,000 houses valued at about $250,000 each, they would have to add 35,000 houses valued at $350,000 each, quadruple the size of the county. And, unfortunately, since they are constrained by public lands----

Mr. DeFAZIO. Yes, sure.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Moved the authorization out, but it unfortunately got hung up in the process and never did become law although we certainly saw more action on this side of the Hill than we did in the Senate.

Mr. DeFAZIO. My friend, Representative Hooley, mentioned reauthorization. I do want to thank the chairman of the Resources Committee, Nick Rahall from West Virginia. And, yes, this touches West Virginia too. There are communities at risk there that are working hard to help us move the reauthorization bill for the longer-term funding in the Resources Committee, hopefully next month. And obviously my colleague from southern Oregon, Representative Walden, when he was Chair of the Forest Subcommittee of Resources, he and I, quite quickly, and I think just about, almost 2 years ago--

Mr. DeFAZIO. We have been joined by a couple of other Members, I am sure we want to get to those. But just a quick thing. I came from Lane County, I was a commissioner in the early 1980s, when we had a drop off in timber revenues due to markets and not as catastrophic as this. And yet at that time, in a county this size, and we have to relate this to our colleagues back here, they cannot understand how big our districts are, a county which is just one of my counties, the size of the State of Connecticut had no rural law enforcement patrols outside of contract deputies and a couple of small communities, a county the size of the State of Connecticut. And we are headed back to that point in many counties in the western United States.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue and for bringing this both to the attention of the House and the American people. Obviously, we don't need to do much to communicate the level of concern with people at home and in our districts, or even in hundreds of counties scattered across America. In fact, across America, over 4,400 rural schools in 40 States will lose funding if this legislation is not reauthorized. 4,400 rural school districts. You can bet most of those rural school districts are already hurting trying to provide the next generation of young Americans with a good education. In some counties all the rural schools will be closed due to a lack of funding if this legislation is not reauthorized. My colleague from Oregon already talked earlier about the highly publicized search and rescue that went on back at the end of last year, the beginning of this year, for the Kim family. You know, this is not, this was a difficult search and rescue mission, since we didn't know where that family was. They were difficult to locate until later they were found by high-tech tech means. But the fact is that we will not even have the capability to begin those searches in many counties in southern Oregon and, indeed, across the West and some other parts of the country if this legislation is not reauthorized. Deputy sheriffs are already receiving layoff notices. Counties don't have the same fiscal year as they have here in Washington D.C. For many counties, the money authorized last October is going to run out about 3 months into their next fiscal year, so we have to begin now to send out layoff notices. We will have hundreds of thousands of square miles of the western United States with no rural law enforcement. What a mecca for meth dealers, organized crime and other criminal elements, potentially even terrorists, if our counties cannot support basic rural law enforcement services; 780 rural counties will lose funding for roads, roads that provide the movement of the trees to the mills that provide the movement of Americans to recreate in their great public lands. Those funds would dramatically cut and in some cases almost eliminate it. Yes, we are talking about a lot of money here, you are right. It is a lot of money where I come from. It is a lot of money for most Americans: $400 million a year is invested in counties and rural schools across America, and the return is many times that. Let me talk about an element of something we haven't talked about yet. It is not just critical services, not just schools, not just law enforcement, not just search and rescue. It is actually benefits to the public lands. Here on chart 1, I have before and after photos of hazardous fuels reduction near Eureka, California, in an at-risk community adjacent to public lands in northern California, obviously before, after. That will cut fire fighting costs, it will save lives, it will save resources. Here we have another that depicts peeled logs that are being used for temporary utility poles, actually in the southeastern United States after the Katrina disaster. Again, these came out of a watershed improvement program, a fuel reduction program, funded by these payments. Then finally I have here, yes, economic diversification, local economic development, small investments in peeling logs and creating posts here at the Hayfork South Highway Three Fuels Reduction Project in California. So these investments benefit the resource. So we are not just talking about crucial public services. We are also talking about money that we have put back into the resources. We live there. We know how valuable these resources are. We want to save them and improve them for future generations; but without these funds, some of that investment will be put at risk.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, finally, I have some grounds for agreement with the President, at least rhetorically. He says he is committed to balancing the budget by 2012. Unfortunately, after that statement, our disagreements begin. First and foremost, he forgets or neglects to tell the American people that he achieves this so-called balance by borrowing $1.2 trillion of Social Security surplus, spending it and replacing it with IOUs. Remember, just last year, the President was shocked, shocked, when he went to Parkersburg, West Virginia, that the Social Security trust fund consisted of nothing but IOUs. Now, the Federal Government is pretty good for its debts unless you run up such a mountain of debt and you cut revenues so much with tax cuts for the wealthy that you can't afford to meet those obligations; you can't afford to cash in the bonds or the IOUs to Social Security. And I believe that is his long-term plan, to bankrupt Social Security, Medicare and other New Deal programs that this administration viscerally hates because they don't encourage people to stand on their own. They say it would be a more productive society if we just didn't have all those social support programs or guarantees of Social Security. I think they give people an opportunity. They allow people to take chances during their life because they know, if they don't make it in that business or something else they are trying to do, at least they have got a foundation there for their later years. So we should not jeopardize Social Security; the President should not borrow and spend the entire Social Security surplus just before the baby boomers retire. But even after he does that, the President's budget does not achieve balance. Far from it. The President's budget assumes there will be no cost for the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan after 2009. I guess he has a withdrawal plan he has not told us about. What about the much vaunted war on terror? No money in the future budgets for that. He assumes all that goes away, you know, the incredible amounts of money we are spending there. He further assumes that if we cut taxes more for the wealthy, that the government will get more revenues. Now, isn't that a beautiful world? If we could just eliminate taxes for the wealthy, I guess we would go back to having surpluses for the Federal Government under the bizarre economic theories followed by these neoconservatives who thus far have been proven to be pretty wrong on a host of things, starting with Iraq and on down to their bizarre theories that, as you reduce revenues, your revenues increase. They don't. Plain and simple, the wealthiest among us have to start paying their fair share to support this country particularly in a time of crisis. Why shouldn't they sacrifice? Like the young men and women, many of whom are in the National Guard because they needed an income. Yes, they wanted to serve our country, but they also needed the income; many of whom are in the military, yes, because they want to serve our country but also because they hope to get those education benefits and some training to do better when they come out. But the wealthiest, they are given a total buy. They have been given tax cuts, the first tax cuts in a time of war in the history of the United States of America. But the President doesn't think we should ask anything of the wealthy, and he pretends that if we extend their tax breaks forever, if we eliminate taxes on estates worth over $5 million, then in fact the government will have more revenues. Unfortunately, it is not true. It will increase the deficit wildly beyond the numbers in his budget. So he borrows all of the Social Security surplus, robs the trust funds, spends the money, replaces it with IOUs, cuts taxes for the rich people. How else does he pretend to get the balance? By cutting Medicare. That will help. $252 billion cut in Medicare, cutting Medicaid health care for poor people, that will get us to balance, would not want to ask the rich people. The tax cuts for the rich people so far exceed the cuts that he is making in Medicare and Medicaid, we could fully fund those programs and just ask to restore a fraction of the taxes on people who earn over $300,000 a year and have estates more than $5 million, but the President does not want to do that. He goes on through the entire budget slashing. Again, I agree with what he said. Unfortunately, he did not deliver. He said he would increase Pell Grants. His budget does not increase Pell Grants. It does not increase opportunity for young people to go to college. He does not take on the student loan programs where, if we converted from a bank subsidy program to a national direct student loan program, like I got when I went to college, we could give lower interest rates and make money for the taxpayers. No, he would rather give 17 cents of every dollar of every loan to the banks as profits and subsidies and take it out of the pockets of the students. This is not an opportunity budget, it is not an honest budget, and it will take this country further down the road toward bankruptcy. That will be George Bush's legacy.