Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to replace Mr. Larson.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, so today the United States House of Representatives voted in the next decade, the coming decade with the retirement of the baby boomers looming before us, to borrow, borrow $762 billion so the wealthiest among us can escape taxation and helping to carry the burden of the United States. On the same day the Republican leaders refused to allow any vote on an increase in the minimum wage, $5.15 an hour, the Federal minimum wage. Fairly extraordinary, but it says a lot about priorities. On my side of the aisle there was near unanimity on increasing the minimum wage, and a large majority voted against borrowing $762 billion so we can give massive tax cuts to estates, for the most part, worth more than $25 million. It is not about small business, family farms, tree farmers. There will be in 2009 an exemption of $7 million per family. That will take care of most small businesses, family farms, and tree farms that I am aware of. No. This is about the massive accumulation of wealth, some of it unearned. For instance, let's take Lee Raymond, a wonderful gentleman, recently the CEO of ExxonMobil. We all know them well. They made $100 million a day last year. ExxonMobil made $100 million a day last year extorting the American public, the driving public, through price gouging and extraordinary profiteering. Now, Mr. Raymond, who held the helm until recently, was rewarded fairly handsomely for doing that, a $400 million retirement payout. So this one gentleman, one gentleman, of course, he really worked hard to earn that $400 million, and he is going to have to limp through his retirement on $400 million, although I think he still gets to use the corporate jet, and they still would have to provide him some other emoluments suitable to his status. But, in any case, this one change in the Tax Code is going to be worth an approximately $160 million tax break to Mr. Raymond. So while ExxonMobil is fleecing the consumers over here, Mr. Raymond gets a $400 million windfall pension, and then he gets from the Republican leadership a $160 million tax break. Now, that might be kind of okay, except they are going to borrow the money to give him the tax break. We are borrowing right now $1.3 billion a day to run the Government of the United States, and with this new tax break for the richest among us, estates worth more than $25 million, we are going to borrow another $210 million a day. Our credit is good. Isn't that great? That is the good news, they would say, our credit is good. Unfortunately, the bill isn't going to go to Mr. Raymond. The bill is going to go to people who work for wages and salaries. Under the bill that passed here today, a schoolteacher will pay a higher rate of taxation on their salary than Mr. Raymond will on his windfall from ExxonMobil. Now, that is fair in their world. It is not fair in my world, and it is not fair to the people I represent. You can look at it another way. The next decade, as the Social Security annual surplus diminishes down toward zero toward the end of the decade, roughly the surplus during that decade will be about $780 billion. So we are going to borrow the entire surplus collected to pay the benefits of retired Americans; of course, not Mr. Raymond, he is not too worried about it, but other Americans, and we are going to give that as a tax break to people who have estates worth more than $25 million. Isn't that great? And they say this is about small business and family farms. No, it is about feeding those who have given so generously to you. This is the contributor class that we are talking about here, and the contributor class is awfully generous and has been incredibly generous to George Bush over his political career and extraordinarily generous to the Republican majority here in Congress. So, it is not too much to ask that they should pass a bill that gives them a $762 billion windfall, hands the bill to working Americans, and they hope to stay in power. A very sad day for the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, again, this is about public-private partnerships. It is about cost-effective and innovative production. The large defense manufacturers are not exactly known as paragons of innovation or cost- effectiveness, so diversifying into the small and midsized businesses in the Pacific Northwest is a great investment for the Federal taxpayers, and we are providing vital products to our troops. Hydration technologies was already mentioned, based in my district. Body armor is produced in my district. We have a stealth boat manufacturer, missile silos up in Darlene's district. These are all members of the coalition. Night vision goggles, critical to our troops. So if you support cost-effective, innovative and effective equipment for our troops, you will oppose this amendment and support the initiative.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Just to remember, Khobar Towers, of course, was perpetrated by Saudi Arabians. The Cole and the embassies were attacked by al Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan, led by Osama bin Laden, who is still at large and still based in Afghanistan or Pakistan. But I am not going to revisit the debate of last week about Iraq. What we are going to talk about here is the Constitution and the authority of the United States Congress. There seems to be a new-found respect for that among the Republican leadership, and I appreciate that. Recently Speaker Hastert said: ``We need to protect the division of powers in the Constitution of the United States. We want to make sure that we protect the Constitution.'' Majority Mr. Leader Boehner said: ``Every 2 years I stand in the well of the House and raise my right hand and swear to uphold and defend the Constitution.'' So there is a new-found and growing respect on that side of the aisle for the Constitution. Unfortunately, all of that umbrage was about a search with a warrant of a Member's office, a Member of Congress who had $90,000 cold cash in his freezer. Now I don't agree with their concerns and don't feel that it is an abrogation of the Constitution, but I do feel that ceding our war powers is. In the case of Iraq, the United States Congress, I believe, unconstitutionally ceded its authority. We didn't declare war, we just said the President should do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, however he wanted. And it hasn't worked out real well. Article I, section 8, is quite specific about the authorities reserved for the Congress. They were worried, the Founders were worried, about the wont of kings to engage in foreign adventures, so they wanted to restrain the king and retain the authority to raise the armies, fund the armies, and declare war to the Congress. They are very clear in Article II, section 2, which says, ``The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual service of the United States.'' That is, the President had the authority to repel sudden attacks, but not launch a offensive military actions without a declaration of war. Now, unfortunately, Mr. Gonzales, the President's former counsel, now head of the Justice Department, the Attorney General, has said he finds new inherent powers in the President in times of war, and he says the President has constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, as the sole organ of the Federal Government in foreign affairs, to deploy the Armed Forces of the United States. A formal declaration of war or other authorization from the Congress is not required to enable the President to undertake the full range of actions. This is a total denial of all previous jurisprudence of the writings around the Constitutional Convention and basically rendering Congress meaningless. Now, in this House we did have a proud moment after 9/11. On September 14, we voted with near unanimity, one person dissenting, to go after, essentially a declaration of war against the Taliban, the perpetrators of 9/11, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden. Now that was a proud moment. And we should look back to that, and we should retain those authorities, and we should safeguard those authorities to this United States Congress. This would not tie the hands of the President in any way that isn't tied by the Constitution of the United States. If there was an imminent attack, if they had a missile on the pad and they were fueling it up to shoot at the United States of America, with a nuclear weapon on it, the President would have authority to repel a sudden attack. But if they are contemplating a preemptive or preventative or whatever they want to call it war, similar to the one launched under false pretenses in Iraq, then they should come and make the case to the people's House, the United States House of Representatives, and to the Senate and get the legal authority in order to conduct those actions. So I would urge our colleagues to stand up for our constitutional rights here in the United States House of Representatives. I know it is a lot easier to have plausible deniability sometimes and give the President a broad grant of authority; and if in the end it is skewed, then you can say, they really didn't exactly tell us the right stuff when they launched that war. It would be better for us to be very clear about the delineation of these authorities, and the House should approve this amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H. Res. 861. The Republican leadership has been promising for weeks that the House would have a genuine debate about the future of U.S. military involvement in Iraq. Given that promise, I am disappointed that H. Res. 861 is a truly hollow effort. Despite the eloquent words used, the resolution has no legally binding impact. It does nothing to require a re-evaluation of U.S. policies in Iraq or to change the status quo. It does nothing to address the mistakes that have been made in Iraq. The American people, particularly our troops serving honorably in difficult circumstances in Iraq, deserve more than cheerleading and sloganeering. Unfortunately, empty promises are all this resolution offers. A vote for this resolution is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote for staying indefinitely in Iraq, perhaps a decade or longer. It is a vote for continuing with the current policies with no end in sight. I cannot support endorsing the status quo. On March 21, 2006, President Bush actually said that the question of bringing home U.S. troops from Iraq ``will be decided by future presidents,'' signaling that U.S. troops will not be home until 2009 at the earliest. The American people need to understand that a vote in favor of this resolution is a vote to stay in Iraq until at least 2009. Let me address my specific concerns with the text of the resolution. First, I am concerned that the resolution inappropriately lumps Iraq in with the so-called global war on terror. It was Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, not Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I believe it was a mistake to move intelligence and military assets away from the fight against al-Qaeda, which did not have a presence in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion, in order to attack Iraq. Iraq did not pose a direct threat to U.S. national security, had not attacked the U.S., and could be contained with sanctions, inspections, and no-fly zones. Second, and perhaps of most concern, the resolution endorses keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a ``sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq.'' By that standard, the U.S. will be in Iraq for a decade or more. That is unacceptable and unnecessary. And, in fact, it undermines U.S. national security by indefinitely tying up U.S. intelligence and military assets that could be better used finding Osama bin Laden and breaking the back of al-Qaeda around the world. The U.S. cannot impose freedom, security, and unity in Iraq by force. Those worthy goals can only be achieved by the Iraqi people themselves, which will only happen when the Iraqi people and their leaders decide to put aside their sectarian differences. 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. As long as the U.S. military remains stuck with the president's pledge of unending, open-ended support, Iraqi politicians and security forces will use the U.S. presence as a crutch. Establishing a timeline to bring the bulk of our troops home and redeploy others to fight al- Qaeda would force the Iraqi people, politicians and security forces to resolve their differences, establish an effective and inclusive government, end sectarian violence and create a secure society. The U.S. military cannot solve the sectarian problems in Iraq. Only the Iraqis can. Proponents of the resolution say that those like me who want our troops to come home are defeatist and want to cut and run from Iraq. To the contrary, I believe the U.S. military has already done all that has been asked of them. Saddam Hussein is on trial. The threat from alleged weapons of mass destruction programs in Iraq has been neutralized. The programs do not exist, and didn't before the war for that matter. The Iraqi people have written and adopted a new constitution and elected a new government. It is time to turn over control of the country to the Iraqi government, Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqi people to build their own future. Second, the resolution contains the blatantly false assertion that negotiating a timeline for bringing U.S. troops home with the Iraqi government undermines U.S. national security. Such a statement shows a misunderstanding of the enemy we face in Iraq. Although today the president and proponents of this resolution fail to distinguish between the various enemies we face in Iraq, in a speech on December 12, 2005, the president actually did make important distinctions between the insurgent elements in Iraq. He mentioned ``rejectionists,'' which are mostly Sunni Arabs 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 Arabs. 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 Moqtada al-Sadr. The reality is that the rejectionists, Saddamists, and nationalist Shias, who combined make up the vast bulk of the insurgents in Iraq, have no interest in attacking the U.S. homeland. They just want U.S. military forces out of their own country. They have no designs on our country. So it is misleading, at best, to argue that if we don't fight the insurgents there, we will fight them in the streets of the United States. Even the foreign terrorist elements in Iraq seem more focused on igniting a Shia-Sunni civil war in the Middle East and attacking regimes they consider infidels in the region, such the Jordanian monarchy. It is also misleading to pretend that if the U.S. leaves that somehow Osama bin Laden will take control of Iraq. There is no chance that the Shias and Kurds, who represent around 80 percent of the population in Iraq, will allow foreign terrorist elements to take over the country. Even the majority of the Sunnis have grown tired of foreign terrorists operating in Iraq. With respect to the argument about waiting us out, as long as the Sunni, Shia and Kurds cannot resolve their political differences, violence will continue in Iraq. It is not a matter of whether we're there or not. It is ridiculous to assume that the insurgent elements will stop attacking once a timeline for bringing U.S. troops home is announced and will wait to start again until after we leave. I believe that negotiating a timeline for bringing U.S. forces home is a prerequisite for stabilizing Iraq over the next several months. Announcing the termination of the open-ended U.S. military commitment in Iraq and providing a concrete plan, including a timeline negotiated with the Iraqi government, for bringing our troops home would undermine support for insurgents. Public opinion polls show that nearly 9 in 10 Iraqis support announcing a timeline for U.S. withdrawal and 70 percent want the U.S. out by the end of 2007. The U.S. cannot want to stay in Iraq more than the Iraqis themselves want us there. As, the Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General George Casey, testified to Congress last year, ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.'' A specific withdrawal plan, with benchmarks for measuring success in stabilizing Iraq, could unite Iraqis, Sunni, Shia and Kurd, against the foreign terrorists operating in Iraq. That would be a key turning point in stabilizing the country. A timeline for bringing U.S. troops home that is negotiated with 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 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 in which the standing of rulers and governments is generally low. Similarly, establishing a firm timeline for bringing our troops home could accelerate the development of Iraqi security forces and deepen their commitment to defending their own country and their own government. It would eliminate the conflict they now feel by working with what many of them see as an occupying force. It would allow them to defend a sovereign Iraqi government, rather than fight alongside U.S. forces. A plan to bring the bulk of our troops home from Iraq and free up intelligence and defense assets to redeploy to fight al-Qaeda, particularly in Afghanistan and along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, could also help the United States in our broader fight against Islamic extremists with global ambitions. It would make the U.S. safer by taking away a recruiting tool and training ground. Former Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, testified to Congress that, ``Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists. These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism.'' He went on to say, ``The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists.'' In addition to a timeline, I have 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. 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. Third, I am concerned that the resolution continues to mislead the American people, about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant. I am glad he is now on trial for crimes against humanity. But, opposition to a dictator is not the measure I use when deciding whether to send our men and women in uniform off to war and possible death. For me, there must be a direct threat to U.S. national security to justify the sacrifice of the blood and wealth of fellow Americans. In the case of Iraq, I didn't see that. The resolution claims that Hussein ``supported terrorists'' and ``constituted a grave threat against global peace and security.'' Saddam Hussein did pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. So in that sense he did support terrorists, but he did not support the terrorists who attacked the U.S. The 9/11 Commission and other experts have found no operational links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Further, as I previously mentioned, Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction programs and could be contained by sanctions, inspections and no-fly zones. Finally, I would like to bring my colleagues' attention to a survey of 100 top foreign policy experts just released by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine. The survey indicates that despite the cheerleading we're hearing on the House floor today, the U.S. is not winning the war against Islamic terrorists and Iraq has undermined our efforts. More than 80 percent of the experts surveyed believe the U.S. is becoming less safe. Even 71 percent of the self- identified conservative experts said the U.S. is not winning the war on terror. Twenty-eight percent of respondents, including 26 percent of the conservatives, said the Iraq war is the principal reason the U.S. is less safe, second only to the more generic reason of rising Muslim hostility toward the U.S. An astonishing 87 percent of respondents, including 69 percent of conservatives said that the war in Iraq has had a negative impact on U.S. security and nearly 60 percent said the U.S. needs to put more focus on bringing our troops home. The results of this survey of top foreign policy experts from across the ideological spectrum are sobering and directly contradict the blind optimism and endorsement of the status quo that is reflected in H. Res. 861. It is unfortunate that the Republican leadership continues to prohibit an open and honest debate about the fight against radical Islamic terrorists like al-Qaeda, and the distinct issue of the best strategy for bringing our troops home from Iraq. The American people deserve better.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders say that this unamendable, nonbinding, purely oratory resolution crafted behind closed doors is a referendum on the war on terror. And it is, but not in the way they characterize it. It is a blanket endorsement of the failed policies, of the diversion of troops and resources from Afghanistan, and the effort to eradicate the Taliban, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Remember him, the leader of the 9/11 plot? We have not heard much about Osama bin Laden. He is still out there. It is about the redirection of the bulk of our military intelligence efforts to an unnecessary, preemptive war against the bloody, loathsome dictator who did not have weapons of mass destruction, was not involved in 9/11, was contained, and no direct threat to the United States. Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney said we would be in and out of Iraq in 90 days. Three years, 3 months later, 2,500 dead, we are still there in the middle of a civil war. A vote for this resolution is a vote to stay the course, unconditionally, indefinitely in Iraq, and leave our troops in the middle of that war. You should not support it. If you want to lead our troops out of the middle of a civil war in Iraq, redeploy and redirect these efforts to a more productive use of our Nation's resources and put an end to al Qaeda and the Taliban once and for all.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, ground zero on the global war on terror is not, never was Iraq. It was Afghanistan; 9/11, it was planned in Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, with the complicit help of the Taliban. In a near-unanimous vote on the floor of this House, we voted to go in there and root them out and end that threat once and forever. But something bad happened on the road to victory, and the eradication of the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the capture, dead or alive, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden. Remember that. We got mired in Iraq. And today the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden are still at large and they are resurgent. I just saw 800 Oregonians off to Afghanistan. We need more troops there. We need to finish the job we abandoned to go into Iraq. But 1,093 days ago, a complicit, compliant Republican-dominated Congress acceded to the Presidential demand to divert our energy into an unnecessary war in Iraq. I was one of the 60 percent of the Democrats to vote ``no.'' Here we are, 2,497 troops have died, 18,490 seriously wounded. We all honor those troops and do not question that. But we disagree, not on the noble service of the troops, but the competence of the leadership of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld in initiating an unnecessary war in Iraq and insisting on an open-ended, indefinite commitment of U.S. troops in the middle of a civil war. The President has said, ``Bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq will be decided by future Presidents.'' That means after 2009. That is what George Bush is talking about. That is not acceptable. At its core, this resolution says stay the course indefinitely. We should be debating a real policy on Iraq, not a nonbinding politically motivated resolution. We should be debating the Murtha resolution, a real plan. As a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I resent the fact that we have here a meaningless, nonbinding Karl Rove-politically inspired resolution on the floor, not amendable, no substitutes allowed; and they call that a debate on the policy in Iraq. They say they are honoring the troops. That is a dishonor to the people of America and those who serve us. And they talk about cut and run. We have won. Saddam Hussein, he is on trial. They have a Constitution. They have a government. They have succeeded. We have succeeded. But they have a sectarian problem. They have been fighting for 1,400 years. And they are going to continue fighting. We need to negotiate a timetable with their legitimate government to get the U.S. troops redeployed, out of Iraq, to other hot spots and bring the remainder home.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I just recently sent 850 Oregonians off to Afghanistan to fight the resurgent Taliban and Osama bin Laden, the perpetrators of 9/11. September 14, this House, on a proud day, with one exception, voted to authorize the war in Afghanistan to take out the Taliban, take out the perpetrators of 9/11, al Qaeda. That was nearly unanimous. But sadly, the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress distracted us onto a path of a war in Iraq 1,143 days ago. 2,497 servicemen killed, 18,490 wounded. First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then it was about 9/11. Then it was about building democracy. But now the Republicans want to pretend that it has to do all about the war on terrorism. They mentioned al Zarqawi. The Pentagon wanted to take out al Zarqawi. They had him in their sights before the war in Iraq, and the Bush White House and Dick Cheney wouldn't let them because it would hurt recruitment for the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq, where al Qaeda did not exist. If you strip out the rhetoric from this nonbinding resolution, with no Democratic alternative, no amendments allowed, it is a stay the course resolution with an open-ended commitment. As the President said, a future President will decide when U.S. troops will leave.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has shirked its constitutional duties when it comes to the issue of Iraq. The most solemn of duties that this body can undertake is the declaration of war, reserved to the United States Congress. Now, in the case of Afghanistan, the known perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden and his collaborators in the Taliban, this Congress did act, with near unanimity. One person dissented. And we passed a resolution that was compliant with the War Powers Act and the Constitution of the United States to authorize an attack on Iraq and others who aided and abetted in the 9/11 attacks. Now, if George Bush had had proof or had really thought that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were involved in 9/11, he would have needed no further authority. But, clearly, he had no proof, and he couldn't make the case. But he, nonetheless, wanted to attack Iraq. And Congress, reaching a new low point here, in my opinion unconstitutionally, vaguely delegated its solemn duties in the case of the making of war to the President. Now, I don't believe that Congress can do that, but we did, and the President then, some 5 months later, used that very broad grant of authority to preemptively attack Iraq, ostensibly to remove weapons of mass destruction and the threat of Saddam Hussein, which later morphed into connections to 9/11, which later morphed into any number of other things, and which finally became we went into Iraq to bring freedom and democracy. Now, since that time, this Congress, this Republican-led Congress, has refused to conduct any meaningful oversight of what happened about the distortion or the misuse of intelligence, about the huge scandals surrounding the more than $10 billion which has disappeared in the so- called reconstruction effort or the actual conduct of the war itself, the unbelievable incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and his cronies, and the impact on our troops in the military. Not one meaningful hearing. No debates here on the floor of the House. So, finally, the Republican leadership says, well, we are going to have a meaningful debate. Now, let's see what they mean by meaningful debate. Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will take up a bunch of time, that is good, at least we are going to discuss it on the floor, but it will be to debate a nonbinding resolution; that is, something which has no force of law and no authority. It is a sense of the United States Congress. And if you read that sense of Congress, you will find a nonbinding resolution which will not be amendable. No Democratic alternative or substitute will be allowed. What the Republicans wrote in secret will be voted on here on the floor of the House. That is it, up or down. This resolution, if you vote for it, is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote for staying in Iraq indefinitely, perhaps a decade or longer. It is to continue the current policies with no end in sight. On March 21, President Bush himself even said that the question of bringing home U.S. troops from Iraq will be decided by future Presidents. Future Presidents. Remember, unfortunately, he still will be President until 2 years from last January. Now, that is a pretty extraordinary statement for the President to make. Now, I wish that the Republican leadership really wanted to have a full and fair debate. They could at least allow us to have and debate an alternative. I am a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus. I am a cosponsor of Representative Jack Murtha's legislation, legislation that would lead to a thoughtful and appropriate redeployment of our troops, and would also say that we would be ready should they need to reintervene in a crisis situation in Iraq. But what it would do is get us out of the business of day-to-day getting between the Shiias, the Kurds, and the Sunnis. Now, Bush administration said, well, we never could have predicted the Shiias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds wouldn't get along. Rummy said they would welcome us like liberators, with flowers and stuff. He just ignored the last 1,400 years of history, that is all. He also ignored the State Department and the intelligence agencies, other than the little select group he had who said the same thing. And now, I believe that the Shiias, the Kurds, and the Sunnis, and many others, will not meaningfully move to share power, get their act together and develop a national government as long as we are staying forever, which is what the President and what this resolution says. So I believe that if we go down the path of adopting this resolution that there will be Members of Congress debating this issue years and years from today about what is the U.S. future in Iraq.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I ask unanimous consent to take the time of Mr. Emanuel.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is Dubai Ports all over again. Vociferous people are aware of this change in policy, and they will not say what their position is on it. This will undermine national security. Any country with an open skies agreement will be able to buy and control a U.S. airline for all practical intents and purposes, including Indonesia. Imagine when we deploy our military on the civilian reserve air fleet flown by Indonesian pilots. Oh, there is a little terrorism problem in Indonesia, isn't there? That will be really good. I think they will feel really secure on those planes. It is also in pursuit of lame free trade agreements, so-called ``open skies,'' yet another loser for America. The outsourcing of pilot jobs, flight attendant jobs, mechanics jobs, and other executive jobs. And I am not so concerned about the execs. But we are essentially ceding control of the United States of America in violation of statutory provisions if we do not stop the Bush administration. This must be adopted. Mr. Mica could not be more wrong. This will undermine security and air service in this country.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time. I too rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary, the great vision of President and General Dwight David Eisenhower, in terms of the national highway system. Fifty years. It is a long time. And now we need to look forward to the next half of the first century of the national highway system, and that is going to constitute quite a challenge. We, just after some lengthy struggle, finally reauthorized the highway program with SAFETEA-LU last summer. But what we see looming before us is a system that is starting to show its age. The cracked bridge problem in Oregon, failing bridges that were constructed actually with 1950s technology, just before we moved to prestressed concrete, the cast-in-place bridges, and other places around the country. The system is showing its age, the wear and tear, it is showing in places that it is not up to the task of current traffic volumes, and we need to look to the future of this great artery of commerce and transportation and recreation transport for Americans, daily commutes to work, to long trips to far-away places within this wonderful country. And that is a challenge that the chairman of the committee has begun to address with hearings to look at what the future sources of funding will be to meet even greater demands than the initial construction of this system. So I rise today both to commemorate the 50th anniversary and the visionaries who gave us this great system, and to join with my colleagues here who I know will be part of the solution about how it is going to be celebrated yet another 50 years from today as still an essential artery for commerce and transportation in the United States, because visionaries in this and some near subsequent Congresses recognized the need to continue to invest, reinvest and enhance the system.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about a statistic that came out last week that says a lot about the direction of the United States of America, and that was the trade deficit for April. That is the deficit between what the United States exported and what we imported from overseas. Essentially, when we run a deficit, we are borrowing money to buy things that are made overseas. That has long-term implications in terms of U.S. indebtedness to foreign nations, particularly China which is growing more rapidly than our debt to any other nation, and the loss of the jobs that comes from that. The trade deficit for April was 63.4 billion jobs. Now, the Commerce Department, the Bush Commerce Department likes to tout our trade policy and talk about how it creates jobs, and they say for every billion dollars of trade, you create 20,000 jobs. Well, if you are running a deficit, then that must mean you are running a negative number in terms of the creation of jobs. In this case, that would be about 12 million jobs lost in 1 month's trade deficit. Three million of those are manufacturing jobs. We are outsourcing all of the United States industrial base to China. That also has national security along with economic implications in the future. But down at the Bush White House and at the Bush Commerce Department and the Bush appointees at the Federal Reserve, they say this is great. It shows how strong our economy is that the world is willing to finance our borrowing to buy things that they make that we used to make that we don't make anymore. Now, what world do they live in? Americans are losing jobs. Wages are being driven down. They think that is good actually. The President did have an economic adviser last year who said the exported jobs was just the greatest new manifestation of the benefits of trade, outsourcing of jobs. So they are totally sanguine about a $63.4 billion trade deficit, about the fact that we are borrowing $2 billion a day from foreign countries to buy things made elsewhere in the world. That is not a sustainable model. It now exceeds over 6 percent of our total gross domestic product. That is worse than Argentina before they collapsed in a heap a few years ago. This is not sustainable. It is ultimately going to lead to a crash in the dollar and a huge run-up in interest rates here in the United States that make the Jimmy Carter interest rates of 16 and 17 percent look like a bargain. But the Bush administration says, no, it is working just fine. It is working just fine for a bunch of corporate CEOs and a few boards of directors and other preferred people in this country. It is not working well for American workers, and the American consumers are getting a Faustian bargain here. We may see some cheaper prices in the short term, but long term things are going to get much more expensive. It also reflects a failed or, let us say, a lack of any energy policy on the part of the United States of America. $24 billion of the April deficit was due to oil imports. So while we fund Saudi Arabia and other countries that harbor and have harbored and created terrorists that attack the United States of America with billions of dollars every month, the Bush administration, totally enthralled to Big Oil, wants to continue to just say, no, let the markets, let Big Oil solve our energy problems. After all, they are making a pile of money. ExxonMobil made $100 million a day last year. Things are working really well in the energy markets. Yet, if we look a little south to Brazil, 30 years ago when there was an oil crisis, Brazil said they were going to become energy independent, and they have. If the people of Brazil can become energy independent, I believe the people of America could if we were well led, if we had an energy policy that determined to lead us toward energy independence instead of being in hock to Big Oil and OPEC and Saudi Arabia and other hostile interests around the world. We could do much better for ourselves and we could have long-term stable and more affordable energy, but it is going to require an investment. It is also going to require standing up to Big Oil. Short term, we have got to take on the price gouging and the profits and the manipulation of markets by Big Oil and bring the price down while we transition to a more sustainable model, and then we have got to invest in the new technologies that will lead us to energy independence and efficiency. But, sadly, the Republican majority and the Bush White House have no interest in taking America in that direction. The petroleum industry is a very, very generous campaign contributor. Eighty-five percent of their massive contributions out of that obscene profit flowed to the Republican Party and the Bush White House last year, and they are not going to take them on. Well, we should take them on for the interest of America and the American people. And I tell you, this is one Member, and I believe there are other Members on this side and even a few on that side who are willing to take them on. We have to deal with the trade deficit, and part of that is getting a sustainable energy policy.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Colleagues, I have tremendous concern about the lack of preparedness in our Nation for the potential of a flu pandemic. Now, it is not certain that the current H5N1 bird flu is going to become a human-to-human type pandemic, but all the experts say we are overdue for a pandemic in the United States so it is prudent that we look at our preparedness or lack thereof. Recently, in the Homeland Security Committee on which I serve, as does the gentleman in the chair, we held a hearing called ``Are We Ready: Implementing The National Strategy For Pandemic Influenza.'' There were a number of disturbing things that came out during that hearing, and one in particular has been highlighted a number of times by GAO reports and recently by press reports. I asked some questions regarding that during the hearing, and that is the lack of ventilators in the United States. Basically, experts say that medical professionals will be triaging ventilators because we have such a severe shortage of ventilators in this country. It is the one way to help take someone through an acute phase of the H5N1 virus. The very few survivors that are known have been on ventilators and received intensive antiviral drugs and others. So were this to be a pandemic, as opposed to a few isolated cases, we are woefully short. In fact, the estimates are that we would be 637,500 ventilators short. That is, people would be dying unnecessarily because they wouldn't be able to get near a ventilator, and that number assumes that none of the existing ventilators are being used for any other purpose in the United States. Now, when I raised this issue with Dr. John Agwunobi, who is the Assistant Secretary For Health, he is a recent Bush appointee, his expertise was being Health and Human Services Director for President Bush's brother in Florida, so he brings tremendous expertise to this job and great professionalism, as do many of the political appointees we have seen with this administration, but when I asked Dr. Agwunobi about the ventilator shortage, he said, well, that is not our job. I said, well, what about the national stockpile? He said, oh, yeah, we'll get some for the national stockpile. How many? Oh, well, 4,000 or 5,000 ventilators. Remember, we need another 640,000 or so in the case of a pandemic. So I said, well, whose duty do you think it is to enhance the stockpile? How are we going to enhance the stockpile? He says, oh, no, that is the job of the States and the hospitals. He said, in fact, you know, hospitals or some county somewhere might not build a swimming pool; instead, they should be investigating in preparedness for pandemics. Well, he doesn't live in the world that most of us live in. My counties are pretty short of money for essentials. They are not out building swimming pools. We don't have public hospitals in my State. The other hospitals that are there can't get reimbursed. You can't work it into a Medicare reimbursement schedule to buy a bunch of ventilators to stockpile for a pandemic. They have to justify the current clientele needing the ventilators, otherwise they are not allowed to put that into their rate base. So I raised these issues with Dr. Agwunobi, and he just basically blew it off. He is really not too concerned. Now, this is the Assistant Secretary For Health, political appointee of George Bush. He started to kind of remind me of another famous appointee, Michael Brown. But this time it is before the fact. We need action to prepare for a pandemic. I am writing to the Appropriations Committee recommending that they deal with this in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriation bill; that we mandate some purchases for the national stockpile, minimally of ventilators. We should also be doing a much better job of stockpiling the antivirals; and we should also be, with more urgency, instead of waiting for the private sector or the pharmaceutical companies, who aren't much interested in vaccines or other things they can't make a bunch of money on, to give us some new installed capacity in this country, modern capacity, to develop vaccines. I mean, this pandemic will come in waves. And between the waves, if it goes on for 6 months or a year, you could develop and deploy vaccines once the specifics are known. Unfortunately, there are no modern facilities in the United States of America capable of manufacturing vaccines. But, again, Dr. Agwunobi and the Bush appointees don't look at this as a particular problem. We need to better prepare to protect the American people for the possibility of a flu pandemic.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of America's craft brewers. Our culture, our economy, and our communities have all benefited from the contributions craft brewers have made. The craft beer segment includes more than 1,300 small, traditional and independent breweries. We have seen a boost in sales and growth for these small business entrepreneurs in recent years. This consumer appeal has created thousands of quality jobs in our country, helped stimulate a demand for American beer exports, and promoted our agricultural economy. In recent years, breweries and brew pubs have flourished across the Nation. And, as the Representative from Oregon's fourth district, I have enjoyed seeing the diversity that craft brewery has fueled across the Nation. They bring with their craft a healthy dose of friendly competition and a loyal clientele base that appreciates their craft- made lagers and ales. The pioneering spirit of Oregon lives on with its craft brewers. Oregon continues to enjoy more breweries per capita than any other State in the Nation. Even with Oregon having only 1 percent of the Nation's population, it is home to 7 percent of America's breweries and brew pubs. Five of those breweries are among the 50 biggest in the Nation. In addition to their sales success, many of these small businesses support innumerable community-based charities, public institutions, local events and charities. Small craft brewers successfully balance that dedication between the quality of their beer and the quality of their community. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 753 in recognition of America's Craft Brewers.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. Well, surprise, the political appointees at the Bush Federal Aviation Administration and their supporters in Congress want to undermine the safest, most productive air traffic control system in the world by any measure. Why? Because there is one basic flaw. There is an agenda no one is talking about here tonight. It is not privatized. It does not provide a profit for Halliburton or some other contractor. That is what this is all about. Let's kill off the existing FAA and the air traffic controllers and then the private sector will save us. Well, in the three countries where the private sector has come in, it has not worked out so well, neither for the safety nor for the taxpayers. They have all had to be bailed out. They are all more expensive. They are all less productive and they are nowhere near as safe. Now, the gentleman from Florida complains about the salaries. The salary he is talking about with benefits is less than a Member of Congress like himself or me or the gentleman there or any of the rest of us. Now, I could not handle 20 planes on approach with obsolescent equipment and keep people alive day in, day out across America and in our skies. Could he? I think not. Now, I am not going to complain about that salary. In fact, I don't find anybody at 30,000 feet or 40,000 feet that is complaining about that salary. And if we said, well, let's talk about the productivity. Well, they are handling 20 planes at once on approach, death defying air time here. That is about $8,000 per plane. That is even less than the Republicans mandated federal minimum wage. Now, is that where they want to drive this or do they maybe want to outsource it to India so we could send the data over there and they could do it for even less? This is about safety, security, air space, the American public and, yes, it is about fairness. There has been a little bit of talk about fairness. Let's talk about fairness. 265 Members out of 435 have co- sponsored the Costello-Kelly bill; but the chairman of the committee, the operatives at the White House, and the Republican leadership will not allow a bill supported by an overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, to come up for an up or down vote. Instead, they give us this option. We will give you a vote and then we will complain about the terms of it because it is retroactive and has all these other problems. We will complain about it here and we will require, guess what America? A two-thirds vote for passage. This is not a straight deal for the people who keep us alive every week in the skies, who have an unparalleled record of safety and security for the American traveling public. Yeah, you can quibble and complain about the salaries and you can get up and talk about the average salary in my district, but I know the air traffic controllers in my district. There is not a single one of them earning $173,000. They would be living in the mansions on the hill if they did and they do not live in the mansions on the hill. So they can come up with the mythical air traffic controller somewhere. And then the gentleman from Los Angeles comes up and feigns concern about the number of air traffic controllers. Where is someone going to move and relocate and live in the Los Angeles area on the new $50,000 a year salary? Vote for this bill. We need a two-thirds vote. And if it does not pass then come down to the well. I invite my Republican colleagues to come down here, sign the discharge position, and bring up the Kelly- Costello bill for a straight up vote, simple majority.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is a modified version of the amendment I offered earlier to bring the pay-out rates to sync. So I have reduced the additional funding for the Office of Inspector General to $11,500,000. Now, at that level, that is way below the $1 recovery for $1 expenditure level for that office. If we put that additional funding in there, the taxpayers will save far in excess of that. As I said earlier, 3,622 allegations are still pending and have not yet been investigated because of the backlog of that office. Quite simply, to respond to the chairman's concerns earlier, I would see that this money could come from the what they call plus-up or that is, an increase of $3.4 million in the Chief of Staff's Office. The gentleman mentioned Office of the Under Secretary for Management earlier; that woman has resigned, and the office is vacant. And then if we took the $7 million from the limousine account, we would have more than $11,500,000. I would recommend this as a good investment for the taxpayers of America.

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

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Then I would withdraw. Unfortunately, that would mean that we would have to replicate the debate. It would be better if the chairman just rose in opposition as he is going to later and he voted ``no'' and I voted ``aye'' and we had a recorded vote. If the gentleman insists on his point of order, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this point in time and offer the amendment later. I was offering a way to save the body time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. It was my understanding that after the en bloc we were in section 1 of the bill at an appropriate point; and since the previous amendments had addressed taking the money from the office, the same office from which I would take the money, I am a bit puzzled as to why this one is not in order and the earlier ones were.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, we have already had some discussion about the Secretary's budget and the concerns of the Chair and certainly there needs to be some amount of support for that, but this goes to a critical function, a function of the Department which actually could produce more dollars and make America more secure. The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General has done tremendous work. They have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars. They have uncovered fraud and abuse. Right from the beginning the $500,000 that was spent on art, silk, plants and other frou frou things at the new headquarters, that was uncovered by the OIG. The OIG was then detailed, 75 people out of an already inadequately staffed office, to help with Katrina oversight. They found 10,000 mobile homes, at a cost of $301.7 million, vacant and sinking into the mud in Arkansas; $3 million in overcharges for food and lodging provided to disaster responders; a million dollars in overbilling by one company for hotel rooms for disaster evacuees. As of this date, the Office of the Inspector General has unfortunately had to continue to detail 75 people to the Katrina and the disaster recovery oversight. That is bringing about approximately a $15 million shortfall. Yes, there is a minimal increase in their budget, but it is about $15 million short of what they need. They not only find fraud and abuse and overt waste, but make America more secure by spending those dollars more wisely. I am familiar with their work in the area of aviation security. They have been showing us the holes in the aviation security system in baggage screening, in passenger screening and other areas. Absolutely vital function. Again, they have been cut back because of the redeployment and the reassignment of the people to deal with the Katrina recovery effort. And it is not at all certain that those people will be coming back for years. So I think it is essential that we find more funds to have more personnel full time, qualified personnel in this office; and in the end the taxpayers will come out ahead. We will avoid waste, and we will more efficiently spend the dollars we have. I know the chairman will raise concerns about the Secretary's budget. I would suggest another place perhaps that could be cut in the overhead budget is the $21.2 million limousine contract. Now, granted that is a 3-year contract, but that is $7 million a year up from $3.8 million last year. There have been some revelations, and this certainly isn't for security purposes since as I understand it the owner of the company is a convicted felon. So I do not think we are providing security to senior level DHS people by putting them in limousines of a company owned by a felon. I would wonder how many people there are that need limousines there at the Department of Homeland Security. $7 million a year? I mean, if there are 100 people, that is $700,000 a year. I can't even image there are 100 people who need limousine services. There are a lot of caps floating around D.C. loose. I would suggest we could dramatically reduce the limousine budget, and I am sure there are a few other places we could find in the Secretary's overhead, and we could rededicate that money to the Office of the Inspector General, and we could squeeze out the fraud and abuse and better serve our taxpayers and make the country more secure. So I am hopeful that the chairman would be willing to look favorably upon this amendment to help the OIG deal with their current backlog. This is as of March, I did not ask for an update, they had 4,151 allegations of fraud and abuse on file. And they have been able to investigate 429 of the 4,151 allegations of abuse. You cannot tell me that they are overfunded or even near adequately funded when there is nearly 3,800 pending investigations on allegations of abuse. This Department contracts, almost one-third of their total budget is contracted. They should have the most robust OIG force in the Federal Government. Instead, they have the smallest OIG force of any agency in the Federal Government despite the fact that a third of all the funds that go are contracted out and that does not even include the emergency Katrina issue which I addressed earlier. So, again, I would hope the chairman could look favorably upon increasing the OIG budget and accept this amendment. Point of Order

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Another real problem confronting America, another symbolic gesture by the Republican leadership. The thirteenth House vote on opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Now, real action would require taking on the price gouging, collusion, and market manipulation of big oil. Reign in the speculation in the commodities market, save 25 cents a gallon. Impose a windfall profits tax, reopen or build new refinery capacity, 70 cents a gallon. Take on the OPEC cartel but no, they are not going to take on big oil and protect American families who are reacting with shock and awe to costs at the pump because it might slow the gusher, the gusher of campaign contributions flowing into the Republican coffers. So families across America will pay 50 bucks to tank up this weekend and the Republicans will pretend they care.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Here we are Memorial Day weekend. In addition to taking time to reflect on those who have made our country safe and made sacrifices, it is the beginning of the traditional summer driving season. Families across America are going to pay $50 to fill up, or more, and they are mad. So here we are for the 13th time in the United States House of Representatives voting to put politics and symbolism over geology and reality. Now, even if the wildly optimistic estimates of government bureaucrats, not the industry, about the reserves which the Republicans keep quoting with certainty, and they are far from certain; even if that was all there, this would provide a decade from today about 5 cents relief at the pump. But if they were willing to take on Big Oil, we could deliver 70 cents tomorrow at the pump. 75 percent of the oil is traded in a speculative way. There is no market. There is no free market in oil. If we regulated oil the same as other commodities, estimates are we could save 70 cents tomorrow per gallon. If we broke up the collusion among the oil companies who have colluded to close refineries to drive up the price--refinery profits are up 255 percent in one year--then we could save Americans another 35 cents at the pump. So with a couple of actions here on the floor, we could save people a buck a gallon. They are saying, 10 years from today, maybe under wild estimates we might save you a nickel. But they are not going to take on Big Oil because Big Oil is very generous at campaign time, and this is all about the elections. They want to pretend that they are doing something meaningful. Now they want to say it is environmentally sound. How do we get to that conclusion? It is deemed. Does anyone know what ``deeming'' means? Congress ignores reality and says we are creating a new reality. The reality is I came to Congress in 1987. We held weeks of hearings on this so-called environmental analysis. It was laughable at the time when produced by Mr. Watt and the Reagan administration. It was rejected by the courts. This was rejected 20 years ago. They are deeming it sufficient today. They are talking about the most modern technology and analysis and highest environmental protections. Yes, those of James Watt and Ronald Reagan rejected by the courts as insufficient 20 years ago so they can jam through a symbolic bill before Memorial Day weekend to pretend like they really care about American families. They care about the CEOs of those companies. The head of ExxonMobil, a $400 million retirement. Those are the people they care about. They don't care about the families who are having to curtail their vacations because they can't afford 50 bucks to fill up.