Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I want to rise in strong support of the gentleman's project. Our committee looked at it very carefully. We think it is an outstanding project and one that deserves to be funded. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Campbell amendment.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I just want to make sure that everybody sat down and we had the Members stand up.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, point of order. I don't see a sufficient second, Mr. Chairman. I think we have been going automatically assuming. I see staff people on both sides. I do not see Members.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Thank you. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee to inquire about the language in the report accompanying this bill relating to funding for the capability replacement laboratory that is being built as part of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory complex in the 300 Area at Hanford. This lab is being constructed in order to replace facilities that are being demolished as a result of the environmental cleanup program managed by the Department of Energy. The existing lab provides critical science and technology capabilities to the Department of Homeland Security, including radiation detection and analysis, information, analytics and testing, evaluation and certification capabilities. To maintain these capabilities, DHS, along with two agencies within DOE, has entered into a memorandum of understanding to share the cost for replacing this laboratory complex. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for those important points. It is my understanding that there is language in the report to accompany the bill addressing the funding commitment made by DHS in the MOU. I would yield to the chairman of the subcommittee for clarification.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the chairman for his response, and I ask him to continue to work with me and my colleague from Washington to ensure that this obligation is fulfilled by DHS.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I am very much aware of the need to take action to address global warming, and I recently held a hearing to examine the impact of climate change on many of the agencies and resources under my subcommittee's jurisdiction. At the beginning of that hearing, I stated my belief that climate change may be the emerging issue of our time. Climate change may alter the face of our planet in ways we cannot yet comprehend, and I believe it is our responsibility not only to do as much as possible to halt or slow it, but also to do everything in our power to protect the earth's resources from its impacts so that future generations will be able to benefit from them as we and past generations have done. Our Nation's wildlife is one critically important resource that is particularly vulnerable to climate change and is also a resource that is a fundamental part of America's history and character. Conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat is a core value shared by all Americans. America's wildlife is vital to our Nation for many reasons. Wildlife conservation provides economic, social, educational, recreational, emotional, and spiritual benefits. The economic value of hunting, fishing, and wildlife-associated recreation alone is estimated to contribute $100 billion annually to the U.S. economy. Wildlife habitat, including forests, grasslands, riparian lands, wetlands, rivers and other water bodies, is an essential component of the American landscape, and is protected and valued by Federal, State, and local governments, tribes, private landowners, and conservation organizations. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the effect of climate change on wildlife will be profound. The recently released reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC have made clear that global warming is occurring, that it is exacerbated by human activity, and that it will have devastating impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Wildlife is already suffering from massive changes in habitat, particularly in the arctic, and shifts in ranges and timing of migration and breeding cycles. Continued global warming could lead to large-scale species extinctions. These impacts add to and compound the adverse effects wildlife and its habitat already suffer from land development, energy development, road construction, and other human activities, and from other threats such as invasive species and disease. According to the IPCC, global warming and associated sea level rise will continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized now or in the very near future. I believe that, as a nation, we must craft responses and mechanisms now to help wildlife navigate the threats caused by global warming. To conserve wildlife in the face of the far-reaching effects of global warming, there is a need for a coordinated, national strategy based on sound scientific information to ensure that impacts on wildlife that span government jurisdictions are effectively addressed and to ensure that Federal funds are prudently committed. Ensuring strategic and efficient allocation of funding is something of particular interest to me as an appropriator. Today I am introducing the ``Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act'' as a first step in ensuring our Nation is using all possible means to help America's wildlife survive the impacts of global warming. The ``Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act'' has four elements: First, it includes a congressional declaration of national policy recognizing that global warming is having profound impacts on wildlife and its habitat and committing the Federal Government, in cooperation with State, tribal and local governments and other concerned organizations, to use all practicable means to assist wildlife in adapting to and surviving the effects of global warming. Second, the bill requires development of a national strategy for assisting wildlife impacted by global warming developed by the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce, States, tribes, local governments, conservation organizations and scientists, and coordinated with State wildlife action plans, the national fish habitat action plan, and other relevant wildlife conservation plans. A committee of scientists is established to advise the Secretary in development of the national strategy. The Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture and Commerce are charged with implementing the national strategy on Federal lands and in conservation programs they administer. Third, the bill will support improved science capacity for Federal agencies to respond to global warming, including establishment of a National Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center in the United States Geological Survey, and enhanced science capacity in Federal land management and wildlife agencies. Finally, the bill directs strategic allocation of funding for implementation of the national strategy and State and tribal actions to enhance wildlife resilience to global warming. The Act allocates Federal funding to implement the National Strategy 45 percent to Federal land management agencies, 25 percent to federally funded and implemented fish and wildlife programs, and 30 percent to States. I am very pleased to say that the State and tribal funding allocated in the bill is made available through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program. The bill also authorizes the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program which was created by our subcommittee in the fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriations bill as an upstream solution to help conserve species before they decline to the point where they need Endangered Species Act protection. Now this important program, and the comprehensive State wildlife action plans that were required for states to get funding, will be on the forefront of our Nation's efforts to help mitigate the impacts of global warming on wildlife. This bill will help ensure that the pressing needs that are faced by the agencies and programs under the Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee to help wildlife and wildlife habitat are addressed strategically, based on a foundation of sound scientific information, and that funding is allocated among the Federal agencies and the States in the most efficient way possible. As I introduce this important bill, I also have one additional very significant point to make about funding to address impacts to wildlife from global warming. As Congress moves forward in considering comprehensive legislation to address global warming, it is possible that new sources of funding for the Federal Government will be generated. For example, in legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions, it is likely that a system of emissions credits that can be traded would be created. In the process, there is an opportunity to auction some of these credits, producing substantial revenue for the Federal Treasury. Although the ``Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act'' as I am introducing it authorizes funding to implement the provisions of the bill, I believe that a portion of any revenues that will be generated by upcoming global warming legislation should be specifically dedicated to implement the provisions of the ``Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act.'' The Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee allocation is woefully stressed just dealing with the current needs of the agencies and programs under its jurisdiction. Our Federal land management agencies have tremendous backlogs for operations and maintenance of our national wildlife refuges, parks, forests and other public lands. This situation has been greatly exacerbated by the past 6 years of Bush administration budgets and prior Congresses. Hundreds of important biologist positions have been cut, and the agencies' budgets are far below what they have needed just to keep up with inflation. These programs have been starved to the point where they are on life support. It became apparent in the recent hearing on global warming held by the subcommittee that the land management agencies are already seeing the results of climate change on the ground, but that they have few, if any, resources to deal with these changes. With the effects of global warming only expected to increase in severity in the coming years, I believe it is crucial to infuse dedicated new funding into our efforts to address this crisis, and I will work to make this happen. This is a great Nation with a unique and irreplaceable natural heritage. We must take steps now to protect our wonderful wildlife from the ravages of climate change.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Hastings, in amending H.R. 1684 to emphasize what we believe is an important connection between our national research laboratories and the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. Our amendment would simply insert in the bill a requirement of the Department to report to Congress about its plan for ``leveraging the expertise of the National Laboratories, the process for allocating funding to the National Laboratories and . . . for fulfilling existing National Laboratory infrastructure commitments to maintain current capabilities and mission needs.'' I believe the national labs represent a tremendously valuable resource that can and should be used by the Department of Homeland Security to protect our population. With expertise it biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear science and technology and computer and information science the national laboratories--those controlled by the Homeland Security Department as well as the laboratories under the jurisdiction ofl the Department of Energy--can play a vital role in the prevention, deterrence, detection, mitigation and attribution of the use of weapons of mass destruction. DHS has already initiated a series of cooperative arrangements with several of the labs recognizing the great synergy that is possible through combined research efforts. Congressman Hastings and I have been working on one such cooperative program with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, in the State of Washington. Under a Memorandum of Understanding, the Department of Homeland Security, the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration and DOE's Office of Science are contributing to PNNL's Capability Replacement Laboratory, CRL, to replace mission critical RDT&E capabilities that will be otherwise lost as a result of the Department of Energy Environmental Management Office's accelerated cleanup of Hanford's 300 Area. Among the capabilities of the CRL that should and will be utilized by DHS are radiation detection and analysis, information analytics, and the testing, evaluation and certification of new methods and technologies. According to the interagency MOU signed by all parties, DHS was expected to provide $25 million for the project in FY 2008; however, the President's budget does not include the funds. With construction scheduled to begin this year, we are now worried about the future of this project due to the lack of attention to this issue at DHS. Although Congressman Hastings and I are working to correct this situation in the FY 2008 budget, I believe this situation highlights the need to examine more closely the relationship of the labs to the Department's R&D effort. Thus, our amendment calls for a report to Congress on the Homeland Security Department's strategic plan for its research efforts to include a plan for fulfilling existing national laboratory infrastructure commitments in order to maintain current capabilities and mission needs. Our hope is that such a public clarification of the role of the labs can help the Department to make a stronger case to Congress for the importance of the work at PNNL as well as the other important national research laboratories.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which, thankfully, reverses years of decline in Federal Government spending on environmental programs. John Spratt has made wise decisions on Function 300. Last month, I testified before the Budget Committee, urging increased spending on these important programs. The chairman said he would consider my request, and he is a man of his word. I am pleased to say that the programs included in Function 300 will be funded at a level $2.6 billion, or 9 percent above what the President requested in his budget, and $15.7 billion between 2008 and 2012. This budget resolution rejects the President's proposal to further cut the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Program, and EPA's Clean Water Assistance Program. In addition, the budget resolution accepts the best idea in the President's budget, and that is to increase funding for the national parks. The Ryan amendment in 2008 would cut $1.5 billion below current services and $4.6 billion between 2008 and 2012. Many of the numbers contained in the President's budget were bleak. The President proposed a budget for these programs which was $2.8 billion less than what is required to maintain current levels of service. For example, funding for EPA faced a reduction of $508 million, the Forest Service down $343 million. The funding for the Park Service would have been reduced by $237 million. And, worse, the President's proposed cuts after 7 years of steady decline are severe. The Interior Department has been cut by 16 percent, EPA by 29 percent, the Forest Service by a whopping 35 percent. These cuts have evidently led to declines in services for visitors to our parks, refuges, and forests and to dramatic reductions in assistance to State and local communities for environmental and conservation activities. I urge you to vote against the Ryan amendment and vote for the Spratt budget if you care about the environment of our country.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to commend my colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. Murtha, for the excellent work on the supplemental appropriations bill that they have brought to the House floor. The House leadership has worked hard to put together the votes to pass this legislation. This bill funds the troops. We have given them extra funds to deal with the critical issues of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. We need to clean up the mess at Walter Reed and the other hospitals around the country, including the VA hospitals. There is money in this bill to provide extra staff, nurses and to clean up these facilities. It is critical that we put pressure on the Iraqi Government to end the civil war. The Maliki government must get the message that the American people do not have unlimited patience. General Petraeus has said that we cannot end this war with only a military solution. We need the Iraqis to resolve the conflict amongst themselves. We need them to fix their Constitution, pass necessary oil legislation, and end the sectarian violence. The benchmarks in this bill will help them to accomplish these objectives. I hope that General Petraeus is successful in reducing the violence in Baghdad and the surrounding area. I hope that U.S. forces embedded with Iraqi forces can stop the sectarian killing. Without political reconciliation, we cannot stop the sectarian violence and the al Qaeda- led terrorist attacks. We also need an economic recovery program across Iraq to create badly needed jobs. This bill sets a timetable. It puts pressure on the Maliki government, and I think it is the right bill at the right time to change our Iraq policy and to bring the troops home in a reasonable period of time. I hope we can stabilize Iraq, but we can only do it with the effort of the Iraqi Government and their people. [From the New York Times, Mar. 22, 2007] Congress's Challenge on Iraq The House of Representatives now has a chance to lead the nation toward a wiser, more responsible Iraq policy. It is scheduled to vote this week on whether to impose benchmarks for much-needed political progress on the Iraqi government-- and link them to the continued presence of American combat forces. The bill also seeks to lessen the intolerable strains on American forces, requiring President Bush to certify that units are fit for battle before sending any troops to Iraq. Both of these requirements are long overdue. The House should vote yes, by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin. It is normally the president who provides the leadership for American foreign policy and decides when there needs to be a change of course. But Mr. Bush stubbornly refuses to do either, and the country cannot afford to wait out the rest of his term. Given Mr. Bush's failure, Congress has a responsibility to do all it can to use Washington's remaining leverage to try to lessen the chaos that will likely follow an American withdrawal--no matter when it happens--and to ensure that the credibility and readiness of the United States military is preserved. House Democrats have wisely moved beyond their earlier infatuation with mere deadlines. The benchmarks spelled out in this legislation, which also provides the next round of money for the war, require that the Iraqi government stop shielding and encouraging the Shiite militias that are helping drive the killing. United States and Iraqi security forces must be allowed to pursue all extremists, Shiite and Sunni, disarm sectarian militias and provide ``evenhanded security for all Iraqis.'' The benchmarks also require the Iraqi government to take measurable steps toward national reconciliation: equitably distributing oil revenues, opening up more political and economic opportunities to the Sunni minority and amending the constitution to discourage further fragmentation. The legislation does not settle for more empty promises-- from Mr. Bush and the Iraqis. It would require the president to provide Congress, by July, with an initial detailed report on Iraq's efforts to meet these benchmarks. By October, the Iraqi government would have to complete a specific set of legislative and constitutional steps. Failure to meet these deadlines would trigger the withdrawal of all American combat forces--but not those training Iraqis or fighting Al Qaeda-- to be concluded in April 2008. If the benchmarks were met, American combat forces would remain until the fall of 2008. The measure would also bar sending any unit to Iraq that cannot be certified as fully ready. It sets a reasonable 365- day limit on combat tours for the Army and a shorter 210-day combat tour limit for the Marines. As for how many troops can remain in Iraq--until the House's deadlines for withdrawal-- the legislation imposes no reduction on the level of roughly 132,000 in place at the start of this year. Critics will complain that the House is doing the Pentagon's planning. But the Pentagon and Mr. Bush have clearly failed to protect America's ground forces from the ever more costly effects of extended, accelerated and repeated deployments. If Iraq's leaders were truly committed to national reconciliation and reining in their civil war, there would be no need for benchmarks or deadlines. But they are not. If Mr. Bush were willing to grasp Iraq's horrifying reality, he would be the one imposing benchmarks, timetables and readiness rules. He will not, so Congress must. American troops should not be trapped in the middle of a blood bath that neither Mr. Bush nor Iraq's leaders have the vision or the will to halt.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the other members of the Washington congressional delegation today in expressing my sadness at the passing of our former colleague Jack Metcalf, who represented the Second Congressional District of Washington from 1995 to 2001. Jack came to Congress later in his career, having served for 4 years in the State house of representatives and 20 years in the Washington State Senate. And throughout his career in Olympia, he continued to teach in the Everett area at the high school, as he campaigned twice for the United States Senate against a very popular Warren Magnuson and as he built a cabin retreat that became a bed-and-breakfast business that he and his family operated, which was a special place for Norma and him. He campaigned in 1994 for an open seat in Congress and promised to be an independent voice for constituents in the Second District. Having served with Jack during his 6 years in the House, I am able to confirm that he was every bit as independent as he said he would be. He came here as a well-established politician with well-established views, and he freely expressed those views with vigor and conviction. But along the way he also did two things that distinguished him, at least from my viewpoint as a colleague of his in the Washington delegation. First he established a high priority for constituent service, which I believe was critical to his job as Representative. He fought hard to help individuals who couldn't get responses from a Federal agency. He supported veterans' causes. And even when it came to voting against party positions in his own caucus, he was for the veterans. Jack also cared deeply about natural resource issues, particularly salmon issues. He worked with Senator Murray on the Northwest Straits Commission. Second, he valued friendship, and he always sought to keep the often- heated debate from becoming personal. When he spoke against a position another Member espoused, he would often cross the aisle and speak with that person personally, so you never took any of his comments directly as a personal affront. Consequently, he was well regarded within our delegation, and I appreciated his friendship and his willingness to help on major State issues whenever he was asked. He will surely be remembered for the independence he demonstrated as a Member of Congress, but I can assure my colleagues in the House today that I will remember him as a real gentleman and a good friend. He will be missed, and our hearts go out to Norma and his family. I would like to yield to my colleague Mr. McDermott, who served with Jack in the Washington State Legislature before he came to Congress.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, Members of Congress, leaders of our armed forces and, of course, our treasured Medal of Honor recipients. Thanks to all of you all for joining me in remembering the extraordinary achievements of our combat veterans-- particularly those who wear the Congressional Medal of Honor. It's also a real pleasure once again to have the chance to be with Bruce Crandall, who received his Medal recently at a White House ceremony that I attended earlier this month. When the President read the citation detailing the amazing heroism that Bruce displayed in Vietnam, it was again a reminder to me of how special each of these individuals are and how important it is that we provide adequate recognition to those who achieve this highest military commendation. Out of more than 3,400 individuals to receive this medal in our nation's history, just 112 remain with us today. Their actions in battle, and their continued efforts now as shepherds of patriotism, remind us all how fortunate this Nation is to have men as brave as these among us. Your legacy and lessons of sacrifice continue to inspire us to act with loyalty where we work, live and serve; to walk with courage when obstacles hinder us from the right path. I am honored to be able to serve in my capacity as a member of the United States Congress, and am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this resolution creating the National Medal of Honor day. You have been recognized by your Nation's leadership with the highest medal of military distinction. Now your fellow citizens will always recognize you with a day in your honor. Thank you for your bravery that brought America to where she is today, and thank you for all that you continue do to demonstrate the values of loyalty, sacrifice, integrity, and courage.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue that has occurred in my State over the past 23 years. The White Pass Ski Area is located in the Cascade Mountain Range in the Gifford Pinchot and Wenatchee National Forests. White Pass is renowned as one of the best small ski areas in the Pacific Northwest and offers particular appeal to families. The area, which provides critical tourism revenue to the surrounding rural communities on both sides of the mountain range, is now looking to expand to provide greater opportunities to skiers in the Pacific Northwest. Over two decades ago, we succeeded in passing through Congress the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984. This legislation added over 23,000 acres of land to the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area and removed from wilderness designation 800 acres adjacent to the White Pass Ski Area as having ``significant potential for ski development'' and urging the Secretary of Agriculture to ``utilize this potential, in accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations.'' The Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allocated the 800-acre area that Congress had withdrawn from the Wilderness Area back in 1984 to Developed Recreation in recognition of the intent of Congress. However, the LRMP concurrently inventoried as roadless the same 800-acre area. The conflicting, confusing and uncertain status of the subject lands needs addressing, which is why I rise today. I can say from first-hand experience that, at the time we passed the aforementioned Washington Wilderness Act of 1984, it was congressional intent to permit expansion of the White Pass Ski Area. I would like to submit for the record a letter signed by the 1984 congressional delegation stating that it was our intent to provide for the expansion of White Pass Ski Area. In a February 3, 2004 letter, the U.S. Department of Agriculture also confirmed this congressional intent, stating: ``We agree that the intent of Congress was clearly to allow for ski area development in the Hogback Basin.'' In addition, Congressman Baird, who represents the district where White Pass is located, submitted for the Record on January 31, 2007 a statement urging clarification and action on this Issue. The Fiscal Year 2007 Interior Appropriations Bill that passed the House in May of last year included important information clarifying congressional intent to permit expansion of White Pass Ski Area. The language stated: The Committee notes that the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984 removed from wilderness designation 800 acres of land adjacent to the White Pass Ski Area in Washington State for potential ski development. The Committee notes that the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allocated the 800-acre area as Developed Recreation to allow for ski area expansion, while concurrently inventorying the same land as roadless to reflect its current physical character. The Committee recognizes that it was the intent of Congress to permit ski area expansion into this 800-acre area and urges the Secretary of Agriculture, once the Environmental Impact Statement for the White Pass Ski Area's Master Development Plan is properly completed, to move forward expeditiously in approving the expansion plans in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Unfortunately, the FY07 Continuing Resolution did not include any report language; therefore the language clarifying congressional intent that passed this body last summer was not included in the CR. I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues and highlight the fact that the House Appropriations Committee was prepared and willing to clarify congressional intent, and that the full House approved that clarification by voting for the fiscal year 2007 Interior Appropriations Bill in May. In keeping with this, I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to move forward expeditiously in approving the expansion plans in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations-- once the Environmental Impact Statement is properly completed.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that calls for a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives to slow, stop and reverse greenhouse gas emissions. The Global Warming Acknowledgement Resolution also states that these corrective actions should not harm the economy unduly, and that they should be designed in a way to encourage other countries to take similar steps to mitigate global warming. As the producer of roughly one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions--more than any other country--the United States has a responsibility to take the lead in confronting the threat of global warming. And with the release of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent report in February, it is clear that the U.S. Congress must begin to act now to reduce greenhouse gases. The IPCC report, which represents the most comprehensive and up-to- date climate research, found that global warming is unequivocal and that it is more than 90 percent probable that human activity is responsible for most of the warming of the past 50 years. Madam Speaker, the time for ``what-ifs'' is over and the time for corrective action has arrived. During this 110th Congress, we will debate the best ways to reverse the increased accumulation of greenhouse gases. While we may disagree on the particulars of this debate, it is clear that global warming is a real threat, and the Global Warming Acknowledgement Resolution is a first step toward the development of a comprehensive strategy. There are 22 original cosponsors of the resolution, and I urge your support. Feel free to contact my staff if you would like to sign on to this important legislation.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness. The resolution that is being considered in the House of Representatives today expresses a very clear message to the American people that it is time to change the direction of our policy in Iraq. The meetings and communications that I have had with people from the Sixth Congressional District from the State of Washington have made it clear that the people I represent want to hear from Congress. My resolve in this is strengthened by the loss and grief I have heard from families in my district whose loved ones have been lost or injured in this conflict. I also deplore the mistakes by this administration: failing to deploy enough troops to stabilize Iraq, disbanding the Iraqi Army, failing to provide jobs and economic restoration. Those are but a few. It has been 4 years since U.S. and Coalition Forces invaded Iraq based on what was faulty intelligence. The premise for our military action against the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq was that he had weapons of mass destruction, and even the President has now acknowledged that this determination resulted from an incorrect interpretation of intelligence information. With more than 3,000 U.S. military personnel killed and thousands more wounded, people across the Nation, including many Members of Congress, are questioning our continued involvement very seriously and very legitimately, especially since the President has now ignored the advice we know he received from many senior military advisors and has decided to increase the number of military troops deployed to Iraq. It is time for this Congress to speak clearly and forcefully in opposition to this escalation and in support of changing course in Iraq. In this resolution we are clear that our determination that American forces have accomplished everything they have been asked to do in Iraq courageously and with the professionalism the Nation expects of the best-trained and best-equipped military in the world. These troops have not let us down, to be sure; but in many ways they have been let down by a policy that ignores the reality of their situation, and by a Commander in Chief whose only response to what is unmistakably a civil war in Iraq is to place more American troops in harm's way while sectarian violence plays out in the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Day after day, U.S. service people are being killed and injured by bullets and bombs traded by Shiite and Sunni zealots for reasons that predated our involvement and which will likely endure long beyond the time we finally leave Iraq. For the past 4 years, I regret that the Republican leadership of Congress has abdicated much of its oversight responsibility for the Iraq war and its funding. To date, the Bush administration has not adequately explained to Congress or the American people the reasons for our continued military involvement in Iraq. In announcing his intention to send more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq, last month the President said it is time for the Iraqi Government to act, to take charge of their security and to begin to govern themselves. What we in Congress are saying now is that we believe the Maliki government in Iraq will be more apt to accomplish that goal if we do not send more American troops into Baghdad and if we signal to Iraqis that we are planning for a phased withdrawal from their country. That is what we must do to change the policy that keeps our forces acting as the local police officers on the streets of Baghdad, and to give the Iraqi people greater incentive for taking charge so that our troops can begin to come home. This was a view of the bipartisan Iraqi Study Group, which pointed to a compromise recommendation calling for gradual drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. It is instructive to recall the views expressed by many of the generals on the ground, including General Abizaid, General Casey, General Petraeus, that this conflict cannot be won militarily; it will require a political solution. That political solution requires the involvement of other regional governments, including Syria and Iran. All Americans, certainly every Member here in the House of Representatives, wants the Iraqi Government to succeed and to become the stable democracy we had hoped to achieve at the outset of our involvement. None of us want Iraq to fall into chaos and to become a haven for terrorists, including al Qaeda. But the current U.S. policy and the proposed escalation of a number of American troops offers little promise, I am convinced, of accomplishing those goals. Even the recently completed National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which the President presumably relies upon, concludes that the war, as it is currently being prosecuted, will not or cannot bring about these results. My colleague, Mr. Murtha, has also suggested that it will be up to the Iraqi people themselves who will expel what remains of al Qaeda in the country, and I believe there is merit in his argument. This is an important debate, Mr. Speaker, and one that is perhaps long overdue. We as a new Congress, led by a new Democratic leadership team, must communicate that we are placing a firmer hand on the tiller of this ship of state and that we are demanding greater accountability for both the policy and funding of the Iraq war. This new direction starts with a brief and declarative statement, that ``Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq,'' but it must be followed by that harder task of guiding our military policy through aggressive oversight and more careful direction of our political and military leadership by all of the relevant committees here in Congress. That is our task ahead, Mr. Speaker, and as a member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee, I am prepared to do my part.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to tell the gentleman I want to work with him as well because this is a major concern in our whole area out there in the Northwest, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to also commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Obey, for the work that he has done on this bill. I had some reservations, I must say, when we started down this road. But I now realize that Chairman Obey and our counterpart chairman in the Senate had a good plan to put this thing together. I regret that last year we did not pass 9 of the 11 appropriations bills. Thank goodness, we passed Defense and Homeland Security. And I do think it is important to point out, and I am sure Mr. Obey did this, that we passed most of the bills except for HHS in the House. So I do not blame our colleagues here for what happened. It was the other body that refused to bring the bills up in a timely way. Now, we have, you know, we had a difficult hand that we were dealt. There is some very good programs like rural water development and some very important school money that we could not include because they were earmarks. But I do think it is important for everyone to recognize that, for Indian Health Services, we were able to increase that by $125 million. If we had not done that, hundreds of thousands of members of the tribes would not have been able to get health care. We were able to take care of the LANDSAT for the U.S. Geological Survey, plus $16 million; U.S. Forest firefighting costs, plus $70; EPA Homeland Security hazard, plus $9.5; and operational shortfalls. One of the biggest problems we have with our land management agencies is that they do not have enough money in the President's budget to cover fixed costs, and 80 to 90 percent of their costs are employees. So when that happens they have been, over the last 7 years, forced to cut employment, not fill vacancies. This has affected the Park Service. This has also affected the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They are all hurting. They do not have enough resources. So we have some very major issues that we have to deal with. Conservation has been hit by this administration. From 2001 to 2006, the Interior budget has been reduced by 1.2 percent in real terms. EPA has been cut by 6.6 percent. We put these two agencies together in this bill. So this is a question of priority; and what I am hopeful of, with the new majority and with a new budget and with a new allocation, we will be able to stop the bleeding in these conservation agencies. No one has been a bigger supporter of these agencies than the chairman of the committee who has worked with me on a series of conservation initiatives over the years, but this is a serious problem that we have to face up to. You know, we may have to work to get new legislation enacted in order to increase the amount of money. The land and water conservation money, the amount of money that the administration proposed, has never shown up in the budget. So it is time for us to find some new solutions.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield again just briefly.

Mr. DICKS. And if the gentleman will continue to yield, then, of course, under PAYGO, we have to find an offset; isn't that correct?

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, when we first had the forest plan, the major reduction in timber harvesting, we worked on a bipartisan basis to get an offset. I think it was like $250 million, something like that, and a phase out over a number of years. But I realize some of the schools, especially in Oregon, get a very substantial amount of money for this program, and I hope we can find an offset.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I think it is the Ways and Means Committee. Is it Agriculture or Ways and Means?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Skelton and Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to continue the work of the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. Our Nation is committing substantial taxpayer funds to reconstruction in Iraq. The most recent report of the special inspector general states that over $18 billion has been obligated as of the end of September. Further funds have been appropriated to continue reconstruction and assistance to Iraqi security forces in the current fiscal year. We know that the situation in Iraq is difficult and there is a vigorous national debate about how to best proceed. The security environment is extremely dangerous. Iraq's government institutions are not working well, and the economy is struggling. For as long as we continue to expend our resources there, it is important that we, including the Congress, Department of State, and Department of Defense, get the best oversight and accounting that we can of how these resources are being applied. This not only provides accountability for us; it also helps us demonstrate to Iraq's government ministries what we believe to be necessary practices of good government and accountability. I am very encouraged that Dr. Bob Gates, the incoming Secretary of Defense, endorsed continuing the work of the special inspector general. And further, that recommendation No. 69 of the Iraq Study Group specifically calls for sustaining the special inspector general. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill to ensure that this important oversight and accountability function continues for as long as we are committing significant resources to Iraq's reconstruction. There is no doubt that there is very significant problems of corruption and criminality in Iraq. It is regrettable that we have to say that, but I think this inspector general has done an outstanding job and we should overwhelmingly pass this bill and indicate our support for this legislation

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has made a diligent and sincere effort to seek a compromise position on the estate tax issue, and he should be commended here in the House today. Many of the Members of the House have conceded that the threshold at which estates are subject to the tax is not realistic in today's economy, considering the assets many small businesses routinely accrue in this country. While I believe the full repeal of the tax is unjustifiable, because it would mean such a huge loss of revenue to benefit primarily the wealthiest portion of our population, I believe there is interest in making some adjustment, if the cost in terms of lost revenues is reasonable. So I applaud the effort that was made to seek this compromise, however I rise today Mr. Speaker to oppose the unfortunate result, H.R. 5638, because I believe it doesn't meet the test of being reasonable. At a time when the annual budget deficit is now approaching $400 billion and when there are so many urgent issues in our society that we simply cannot afford to address, I believe the compromise that has been reached raises that threshold far higher than it should be and thus it relinquishes far too much revenue in order to assist a very high-income sector of our population. When fully implemented, and assuming that the current capital gains tax rates are extended permanently, this bill will reduce revenues by an average of $82 billion a year for the first ten years that it is fully implemented. To provide my colleagues with a frame of reference, $82 billion is well more than twice as much as we appropriated earlier this month for the entire Department of Homeland Security. It is nearly four times as much as the appropriation we will consider for the entire Department of Justice for the upcoming fiscal year. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the nation is now engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--for which too few Americans are being asked to sacrifice--and we face a compelling need for substantial federal investments that are required to secure our homeland from the threats of terrorist attacks. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is neither prudent nor fiscally responsible to be adding such a large annual increase--another $82 billion--to the national debt at this time. We are cutting back on programs that benefit seniors, poor and middle-class Americans, and we are reducing our investment in education, health care, infrastructure and the environment. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I cannot in good conscience support a bill that, by its very nature, provides such a large share of its tax benefits to the least-needy people here in the United States. I regret that we could not reach a compromise position that was more fiscally responsible, because the Chairman did accede to our request to accelerate the passage of another important piece of legislation, H.R. 3883, by adding it to the compromise package. I appreciate the Chairman's personal interest in the passage of the Timber Tax bill, which I have cosponsored, in order to restore fairness to the tax code and allow regular corporations in the timber industry to compete on a level playing field with other ``pass-through'' entities that currently receive better tax treatment. Again, it is with great regret that I urge the House to defeat the entire estate tax bill, because I believe the Timber Tax language represents a modest and deserving provision that should be passed no matter what becomes of this legislation. We can defeat H.R. 5638 today and return to the attempt at reaching a reasonable, prudent and fiscally-responsible compromise that addresses the legitimate needs of small business owners and that includes that Timber Tax provision. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5638.