Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the distinguished Chair and the good work of my friend from Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Resolution 742, the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act. This important legislation protects the public's right to know while at the same time honoring the public interest in having reporters testify in certain circumstances. While news organizations prefer to have their sources on the record whenever that is possible, we all know there are times when sources will simply not come forward without the promise of confidentiality, and that's in the public interest to get the information those sources have. Consider groundbreaking stories such as conditions at Walter Reed, Abu Ghraib, the Enron scandal, steroid abuse in the Major Leagues would not have been known to the public or the Congress without confidential sources. And over the past few years, more than 40 reporters and media organizations have been subpoenaed or questioned about their confidential sources, their notes, and their work product in criminal and civil cases in Federal court. The need for this legislation was underscored when on August 13 a Federal judge ordered five more reporters from major news organizations to reveal their confidential sources in the privacy lawsuit filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against the Federal Government. If sources, including public and private sector whistleblowers, are uncertain whether reporters have adequate protection, they won't come forward in the public dialogue and important issues will diminish. The shield is qualified, as it must be. If the information possessed by the journalist is necessary to prevent an act of terrorism, imminent death or significant bodily injury, or harm to national security, disclosure can be compelled. While 49 States and the District of Columbia recognize a reporter's privilege through statute or common law, no uniform Federal standard exists to govern when testimony can be sought from reporters. Journalists should be the last resort, not the first stop, for civil litigants and prosecutors attempting to obtain the identity of confidential sources. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 742 and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair for joining us. I thank my friend from California for cooperating in this debate and giving his usual vigorous presentation of his side's point of view. I want to address a couple of things that came up. One, my friend from California said basically that this is a resolution attempting to appease the Out of Iraq Caucus. And he used the word ``appease.'' It is not about that. But I will confess that I am a person who is strongly opposed to this war, believe it was the wrong decision, it was based on false information, and it is the single most terrible foreign policy blunder that our country has embarked upon. But this resolution has nothing to do with that profound question. What this is about is not who favors corruption. Nobody favors corruption. But it is about who tolerates secrecy. If we tolerate secrecy while we criticize corruption, don't we, in fact, condone the corruption to which we avert our eyes? How will we talk about the facts? How can we talk about the facts which my distinguished colleague from California says he wants to talk about when the State Department denies us the facts? If we are going to root out corruption in Iraq, don't we have to destroy the wall of self-serving State Department secrecy here in our own government? It has been said on the other side that corruption is everywhere. Human nature. No argument there. But if corruption exists elsewhere and it is their money and their future, that is one thing. If corruption exists in Iraq with our hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and our soldiers and their lives, then it is our problem. And we not only have a right, we have a responsibility, Madam Speaker, to do every single thing we can to get to the bottom of it and to stop it. It was also said that in Iraq it is just another government with some corruption. We owe it not just to our own citizens, our own soldiers; we owe it to our allies and our friends in Iraq to do everything we can to help those good people who are there standing up to fight corruption back here. They need our help. Let me just tell you some of the testimony that Judge Radhi presented to us about the incredible peril that folks in Iraq are subjected to when they try to fight for an honest government. Judge Radhi held that position for 3 years, until he finally resigned amid repeated death threats to himself, his family, and his staff. He testified in our committee that 31 of his employees had been killed, not injured, killed, as well as at least 12 of their family members. Judge Radhi's home was attacked by rockets, by a sniper's bullet barely missing him as he stood outside his office. He testified about how one staff member was gunned down with a 7-month pregnant wife. He testified about how the father of a security chief was kidnapped and then literally found hung on a meat hook. He testified about how another staff member's father was killed; and when his dead body was found, a power drill had been used to drill his body with holes. These are officials who are fighting corruption in Iraq, and they are being gunned down, they are being assassinated, they are being tortured; and we are supposed to be standing idly by. When we ask questions of the State Department what is going on and they take a document that yesterday was unclassified and today make it classified, that is not acceptable. The State Department anticorruption efforts have been a mess. And basically what the State Department is doing is just enough so that they can claim they are trying to do something about corruption; but basically it is status quo, as it has been since the day this war began. We have to make a decision as Members of Congress that is very simple: we are real, we are serious, or we aren't. And it is about tolerating secrecy, depriving us and the American people of information that we are entitled to, that we must have in order to do our job; or it is turning a blind eye to those folks in Iraq who are standing up on our side and finding their bodies of loved ones drilled with holes and hung on meat hooks. It is not acceptable. The American people know it is not acceptable. We may have an administration that disregarded the vote of the American people in November when they said they wanted a new direction in Iraq. We may have an administration that disregarded the recommendations of an eminent bipartisan group in the Iraq Study Commission. And we may have an administration that has dismissed and disregarded votes in this House and the Senate, making it clear that we want a new direction even as we struggle to find what that is. But we cannot, any of us on either side of the aisle, accept being an enfeebled Congress that isn't entitled to get the information that our Congress needs to do its job. It is that simple. And that is what this resolution is about. That is what the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is about. That is what Chairman Waxman is standing up to assert and defend, and that is our constitutional responsibility. Not just prerogative, but constitutional responsibility to do what is required to defend our Constitution, to protect our soldiers, to stand up for our taxpayers, and to restore democratic tradition in this country.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. The distinguished Chair has requested an additional 30 seconds, and I would yield 30 seconds to my colleague.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, our Chair has arrived and has requested 30 seconds. Notwithstanding my previous statement that I was the last speaker, I am inquiring if my friend from California has any objection.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, before I yield to my friend from Massachusetts, I would like to just comment on a few of the observations and statements made by my friend from California. First of all, I agree with him that Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis have worked cooperatively and extremely well. And, in fact, there was an effort to maintain that tradition here when Chairman Waxman last Wednesday delivered a copy of the text of this resolution to the minority with specific heads-up that this resolution was going to be introduced on Friday and with the request that comments or edits be provided in a timely way so that the introduction could occur on that day. The edits were not presented until Monday, just before the Rules Committee meeting. So the good news here is that that cooperative approach continued. Mr. Waxman, in his usual gentlemanly and collegial way, made apparent what his intentions were, provided the language and opportunity for response, and it was not forthcoming. So that's the story. The gentleman from California will have an opportunity to respond on his own time, so I won't yield at this time. Secondly, the premise that on a matter of enormous public importance where it is our lives, it is our money that is imperiled, that is being wasted, that Members of Congress could sacrifice their capacity to be a representative of the people that we represent by accepting a classified briefing on something that is profoundly public in nature is flat out rejected by the committee and by most Members of this Congress. When we are asked to go get a private briefing up in the Intelligence SCIF with a requirement that we sign an oath that we can't reveal anything that we learned, it means that the State Department has succeeded in its goal of keeping secret information that should be made public. So that is not simply an option that makes any sense if we are going to move ahead. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Frank and his Committee staff, particularly Scott Olson, for working with me on this important bill to reach a compromise on issues in the bill affecting small states. The legislation as a whole creates a national housing trust fund for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of an estimated 1.5 million units of affordable housing for low-income families. Along with food, health care, and energy costs, affordable housing can make all the difference in economic survival. In Vermont, we have a great need for affordable housing. While so many low- and moderate-income households aspire to own their own home, limited supply, rising costs, and other barriers can make this dream out of reach. Beginning in 2005, the new construction of 12,321 owner- occupied homes in Vermont was needed to meet the total demand expected in 2010. Creating a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund is the brainchild of my predecessor in the House, Bernie Sanders, and I thank him for getting the ball rolling. I am grateful to Chairman Frank for including two items I recommended into the manager's amendment. The first provision will ensure that each State receive at least one half of one percent of funding. For a State agency, there really is a funding level below which it's incredibly inefficient to administer a Federal program. There are always numerous Federal requirements resulting in a tremendous amount of work to comply. In addition, it's hard to raise the expectations of those who would potentially benefit from the program and then have very little money to deliver. Furthermore, numerous social programs, including the HOME program to which this trust fund is similar, include small state minimums. For programs that are targeted at a need that is universal, it is a pretty rational argument that a mechanism should be in place to ensure that a portion of funding gets distributed nationwide. In this case, for something like housing, it is a nationwide issue so the appropriations of Congress should be a nationwide effort. The second provision in the manager's amendment says that within the participating local jurisdictions pool of funding, that each State has at least one local jurisdiction receiving funding. Currently in the bill, for a local jurisdiction set to receive less than $750,000, that amount is reduced to zero. Without this guarantee, many small cities and small States risk receiving no funding under this section of the bill. I thank the Chairman for his excellent work on this legislation.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is expected to meet the week of October 15 to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 4 p.m. on Friday, October 12. Members are strongly advised to adhere to the amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive consideration. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. A copy of the bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership. I thank the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Holmes Norton, and I thank Mr. Graves for his good work. Mr. Speaker, this commission is going to be very helpful to Vermont. We have in the northern tier of Vermont six counties, Caledonia, Grand Isle, Lamoille, Franklin, Orleans and Essex. It is among the most beautiful parts of Vermont. It has among the most industrious people in Vermont. But it has the highest unemployment rate and the lowest wages, about $10,000 below the national median. We want economic development in our northern counties. This legislation is going to give that impetus that is going to allow our regional economic commissions that have been providing excellent leadership but on threadbare resources the opportunity to use local decisionmaking, local ingenuity and local people committed to a prosperous economy in that region to get a leg up. What is tremendous about this legislation, modeled after its predecessors, is that it is a bottom-up approach. So if we have a proposal from folks in Caledonia County that broadband penetration is going to be what they need, or if we have folks in Franklin County who are going to do an agriculture-to-energy-related project, or something with dairy and that is what they need, they are going to have the opportunity for that to become a reality. This is a situation where we actually have bottom-up leadership integrated into this legislation where the Federal Government here in Washington is going to be a partner, not an impediment, to the goals, the aspirations, and the accomplishments of people back home. This bill is really about hope for the future. It is about confidence that local people in those counties in Vermont can make the best decision for themselves, and it is about Congress finally working as a partner with our local communities and local leadership.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, last week, Congress passed legislation, of course, to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. It's a bipartisan bill, provides health coverage to 10 million low-income Americans. It's fully paid for, no change in eligibility requirements. And the President says he's going to veto it because it's going to lead to ``socialized medicine.'' We've had children who have received access to doctors for years. Many States have done it on their own. The Federal Government has supported it with the children's health care initiative. And what's happened? Children have been able to see a doctor. Parents have gone to bed at night with the confidence that if their child was sick they'd have access to health care. It is bipartisan. Republican Senator Susan Collins said, ``I can't believe the President would veto a program that benefits low-income children.'' Charles Grassley: ``The President's understanding of our bill is wrong. I urge him to reconsider.'' Senator Hatch: ``We're talking about kids who basically don't have coverage.'' No justification for this veto, Mr. President. Change your mind.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in celebration of the 90th birthday of a truly remarkable Vermonter, Antonio ``Tony'' Pomerleau. When Tony was 3 years old, he fell down a flight of stairs, injuring himself so seriously that he was forced to wear an iron corset and doctors said he wouldn't make it past his 12th birthday. Clearly, Tony saw things differently, and today, on his 90th birthday, we express our deep appreciation for all that he has given to our state. As an entrepreneur, police chief, philanthropist, and community leader, from his service as a trustee at St. Michael's College to his annual Christmas dinner party for underprivileged children, Tony has positively influenced the lives of thousands of Vermonters. Tony's entrepreneurial spirit shone through at an early age when he would sell haircuts, wash cars, and help in his family's store. In 1942, he bought a failing grocery store. Three years later, he had not only turned that grocery store around, he owned three more stores and a wholesale beverage business. In 1951, he entered real estate. He built the Ethan Allen Shopping Plaza, the first shopping center in Vermont. Today, ``Pomerleau Real Estate'' is a household name across Vermont. But Tony's skill in business is more than matched by his generosity of spirit. Tony is perhaps most well known for his annual Christmas dinners which he started in 1982. In 2004, he expanded the tradition, hosting a party for the families of Vermont Guardsmen and women deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, he served for many years as a trustee at St. Michael's College, has endowed scholarships at Rice Memorial High School, and been a leading supporter of the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, and the United Way of Chittenden County. As the Burlington Free Press, our state's largest newspaper, said it so well in naming Tony the 2006 Vermonter of the Year, ``Everyone has a seat at Tony Pomerleau's table.'' Thank you Tony, for all that you do to make Vermont such a wonderful place, and congratulations on a very special birthday.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank and the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, for their hard work in preparing H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007. I have received positive feedback from the Regional Planning Commissioners and emergency managers in support of this bill. The Planning Commissioners and emergency managers serve on the front-line of declared disasters and work with both towns and FEMA. In fact, Vermont has recently dealt with several significant flooding events and this legislation will go a long I way to improving our response in the aftermath. This bill also provides much needed reform of the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP. I also want to thank the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer, for his thoughtful amendment and working with me and Representative Gilchrest as co-sponsors. This bi-partisan amendment requires FEMA to consider modern climate science when mapping floodplains. Current flood maps do not take into account critical information beyond past flooding history. Accurate floodplain maps incorporating scientific global warming impact predictions will ensure that citizens are aware of the future flood risks in their communities and help prevent the loss of human life, property, and important wildlife habitat. Communities will be able to use these maps in considering their own land use planning and development projects. I believe that the focus on global warming adaptation planning is critical while Congress also moves forward to aggressively address climate change through legislation. Adaptation includes addressing the occurrence and likelihood of more frequent, intense, and severe storms bringing our rivers and streams beyond flood stage; sea-level rise flooding coastal and tidal communities that may even be hundreds of miles inland; reduced snow-pack that is changing annual runoff and water collection; and of course the impact of hurricanes; all of which are resulting in significantly greater flooding across the nation. Vermont communities like Barre or, our capitol of Montpelier are finding that surrounding rivers and streams are more unpredictable-- large rain events have resulted in dramatic river and stream bank erosion that promotes flooding in nearby towns. Rivers and streams are overflowing in areas that were not typically flooded. We are finding flooding events both in and out of current flood plains where people have lost property due to sudden and unexpected river and stream rise. Many of these families are low-income and their homeowners insurance, if they have it, does not cover their claims. And of course, they don't qualify for SBA disaster assistance loans. We believe that changing weather patterns require the tools for smart land use and development decision-making. Updated climate science flood mapping will help all citizens make informed decisions on flood risks and the need to purchase flood insurance. Updated flood maps will also aid communities in smart growth planning to minimize the risk of flooding to their cities and towns. This amendment has received strong support by the National Wildlife Federation, U.S. Public Interest Group, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resource Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Audubon, Earthjustice, American Rivers, Republicans for Environmental Protection, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee, for his two very thoughtful amendments to H.R. 3567, the Small Business Investment Expansion Act and for allowing me to cosponsor them. The first amendment will help small businesses increase their energy efficiency and implement sustainable practices. The second amendment would direct the Small Business Administration, SBA, to reward small businesses that are reducing their carbon footprint. Earlier this year, I offered an amendment, which the House passed, to set a 5 percent procurement goal for the Federal Government to contract with green small businesses. It is critical that small businesses be encouraged to operate and to develop and supply products and services in an environmentally sound way. Many small businesses are already incorporating sustainable practices into their own business, such as conserving energy and water, using sustainable products, or minimizing generation of waste and the release of pollutants. They strive to make products from recycled materials. They use energy from renewable resources such as bio-fuels, solar and wind power. Or they transport goods and services in alternate fuel vehicles. We all have a responsibility to protect our environment. As populations expand and lifestyles change, we must keep the planet in good condition so that future generations will have the same natural resources that we have and enjoy now. The Earth faces many threats ranging from pollution to acid rain to global warming to the destruction of rainforests and other wild habitats to the decline and extinction of thousands of species of animals and plants. Combating these threats is essential to ensuring that future generations can live healthy lives. Our small businesses embrace our Nation's entrepreneurial spirit. The Federal Government can and should serve as a model to the private sector and the rest of the world. As a Congress, we should reward businesses that are striving to be environmentally responsible. Both of these amendments would greatly improve the bill before us and I ask that they be adopted by the House. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, we have 47 million Americans without health insurance. Today, we are going to have an opportunity to vote on providing 10 million children with continued health care coverage that they are going to need. This is, as in the spirit of many of the good things we have done, bipartisan. The Governor of Vermont, Republican, supports it. Republican Senators Hatch and Grassley support it, done a tremendous job. The response from the President, unfortunately, is to veto this legislation. It is hard to understand how it is that, when the cost of this program is the equivalent of 2 weeks' spending on the war in Iraq, we can't find it in our capacity to spend that money to make certain that parents, when they go to bed at night, know their kids, when they need a doctor, will have access to the health care that they need. Our opportunity here in this House is to send the President a message, in the hopes that he will do the right thing and sign this bill, with an overwhelming bipartisan bill that reflects the bipartisan work and bicameral work that was done to bring it to the floor.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 667) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 664 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, and I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 664 provides for consideration of H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The rule makes four Democratic amendments and four Republican amendments in order. H.R. 2881 is a very important piece of legislation last updated in 2003. We are here today to make very critical reinvestments in aviation. And I want to thank, on behalf of the Rules Committee, the excellent work of Chairman Oberstar, the excellent work of subcommittee Chair Costello and Ranking Member Petri. This bill authorizes $37.2 billion for Federal Aviation Administration operations, $13 billion for FAA facilities and equipment, $15.8 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, and $1.8 billion for research and engineering development. The $13 billion provided for FAA facilities and equipment is significant and will work to accelerate the implementation of the next generation air transportation system. This enables the FAA to make needed repairs and upgrades. This is very important to small airports across the country, including 18 State, municipal, and private airports in my State of Vermont that were all satisfied with the work of this committee, that balanced the needs of small, medium and large airports. Quite an accomplishment. I recently read the Department of Transportation estimates up to a tripling of passengers, operations and cargo by 2025. This obviously will require airports across the country to make capital improvements, as well as to make readjustments to compensate for this growth. H.R. 2881 takes action to decrease delays. All of us will welcome that improvement in the current system. The funding levels will allow the FAA to replace and repair existing facilities and equipment to prevent outages and other equipment failures that are a cause of delay. The bill adjusts for inflation the passenger facility charges for the first time in 7 years. These fees, essentially user fees, are used at airports all over the country to make important facility improvements that would otherwise not be possible. This has been very helpful again in small airports like Burlington in Vermont where the funding stream has made this a modern airport, very convenient for the people, and a competitive airport for the region. The rule makes in order Mr. Oberstar's amendment, which includes the Essential Air Service Program, something that helps small regional airports get service that otherwise they wouldn't have. I speak from my own experience: the Rutland Southern Vermont Regional Airport has used this to provide service and help create economic growth in the Rutland County area. Perhaps most importantly, the bill also takes steps towards ensuring our continued safety by increasing the number of aviation safety inspectors, funding programs to increase runway safety inspectors, funding programs to increase runway safety, and requiring regular inspections of foreign repair stations. I was especially encouraged to see there are provisions within the bill recognizing the impact that the aviation industry has on the environment. This bill establishes landmark new environmental provisions to reduce emissions and energy consumption. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I will just close by saying this is an important bill. It makes significant improvements to the aviation industry. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, H. Res. 664. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 664 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, while President Bush is asking Congress and the American people to give his failed policy in Iraq more time, even some of the President's closest allies don't believe the strategy will work. Last week, it was reported that Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, Texas had signed an oil exploration and production deal with the Kurdish Regional Government. That Hunt Oil Company is owned by Ray Hunt, major campaign supporter of President Bush and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. His decision to bypass the Iraqi Government in Baghdad and negotiate directly with the Kurds shows his lack of confidence that Iraq will develop a functioning government in the near future, and it undermined important efforts for the Iraqi oil sharing law, which collapsed last week. While President Bush is asking our Nation to sacrifice more of our brightest young soldiers and to spend hundreds of billions more in taxpayer dollars in pursuit of his Iraq strategy, one of the President's closest allies and advisers is betting that his strategies will continue to fail and, in fact, is looking to profit from it.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, among other things, your bill balances the needs of smaller insurers and larger insurers. You have two provisions in there to try to help the small insurers play their part but not be overly burdened.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. May I engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Massachusetts?

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of us want to be here talking about the war because it's a tragedy, and I believe the American people have come to that conclusion. Whether they supported going into the war or they opposed going into the war, they figured out that at this point our military men and women have done all they can do. They toppled Saddam. They reported back truthfully that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and they allowed stability in Iraq so that Iraq had three democratic elections. At a certain point, it is up to the Iraqis to step up and build their own institutions and their own democracy. We obviously can help and we have some responsibility. But the American people, those who supported the war, those who opposed going into the war initially, have come to a pretty commonsense conclusion: We have done our job, the military has performed ably, and it is time for the Iraqis to take our place. The fundamental question that the President has put to this Congress and to the American people is this: Is it the proper role of the United States military to be refereeing a civil war? That's the question. Now, Republicans and Democrats in the past have been united that our military has a primary responsibility for defending us in fighting wars, not for refereeing civil wars. A couple of things. One, there has never been an example in the history of the world where a third-party military has actually refereed a civil war to a peaceful political and economic conclusion. There are examples of third-party militaries, outside militaries, coming in on one side and, through force of arms, imposing an outcome. But that is not the policy even of the Bush administration. Is this a civil war? Here's what is going on in Iraq right now: There are several different civil wars that are underway. In the south in the Basra region where our ally Great Britain has basically taken its 44,000 troops down to 5,000 troops and redeployed them to a base, there are three different Shia wars going on. They're not fighting about democracy. They're not fighting pro- or anti-Iran primarily. They're not fighting about the future of Iraq as a united country. They are fighting about oil. It is about who is going to be in control of that port and that refinery in Basra. You then go to Kurdistan. Kurdistan has been, in effect, independent since 1991, Mr. Speaker, after the first Gulf War. And they have actually built an economy. They have outside investment coming in. They will not even allow the Iraqi flag to be flown in Kurdistan and are bent on achieving their own independence. But they want oil as well and are threatening, and they have an independent military, the Peshmurga, to take significant forceful action if they don't, from their perspective, get their share of oil in the Kirkuk region. Then you have Baghdad. Baghdad has been the site of the most extreme ethnic cleansing. Before the fall o Saddam, Baghdad had 65 percent population that was Sunni. That was the seat of Saddam's power. Now it is 75 percent Shia. A neighborhood that I visited, Mr. Courtney, when I was with a delegation to Iraq, the Dora neighborhood, had previously been Sunni and was now Shia, and peace came about basically by displacing the people who used to be there and putting new people in. And the overall dislocation in Iraq is astonishing, as you mentioned, my friend from New Hampshire: 2 million Iraqis displaced internally, 2 million exiled; 4 million people already, about 60,000 a month, are affected by this. And that is the equivalent in the United States, 20 percent of our population or about 50 million people. Think about it if 50 million people were displaced, either thrown out of the country or fleeing the country or had to move from Texas to Vermont or Vermont to New York because of force and fear. Then you have the provinces around Baghdad. The Sunni Triangle, Anbar, Diyala, a couple of provinces where General Petraeus was arguing that there was, quote, ``progress.'' Well, again, no one is going to quibble about a military person's estimation of whether there is military progress, but what has happened there largely is that there has been dislocation. The Sunni tribal leaders have done what most analysts expected they would do: They would turn against al Qaeda because they are nationalists. They are much more concerned about Iraq than they are accommodating this radical ideology and they would, quote, ``work with the United States.'' But what's the price that we are paying? What is the tactical decision that was made? The decision was made to arm tribal chiefs. Now, that can work in the short run. It gives them arms to fight alongside American soldiers in some particular circumstances. But what is the overall policy of the Bush administration? It is a strong central Iraqi Government centered in Baghdad. So what you have now is a United States policy that arms factions in the provinces, which is a momentary truce of convenience, that has no loyalty to the central government in Baghdad. And down the road, as what happened in Afghanistan when the United States, to pursue its interest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, armed the Taliban, and that Taliban then became the monster that produced an Osama bin Laden. But we have our policy where we are literally doing two things against the middle: arming factions who are hostile to a central government even as we say our goal is to have a strong central government. So none of us know what all the details are, but what you have is an incredibly internal complexity: a Shia south where there is Shia factional fighting, a Sunni Triangle where there is a temporary alliance of convenience, you have ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, and you have a Kurdistan that is insisting upon being independent. Incidentally, on this question of being independent, even the President's friends who have business interests are getting it. You read the report last week about Hunt Oil. Hunt Oil is owned by Mr. Hunt, a very good friend of the President, a big contributor and a member of the Foreign Policy Advisory Committee that the President pays deference to, listens to. Mr. Hunt bypassed the central government in Iraq and is entering into a direct oil agreement with Kurdistan. So he not only has made his bet that the President's policy is going to fail, he is making arrangements to profit by that failure. So why is it that we are asking the American military, the American taxpayer to continue pursuing a dead-end policy? There is one reason that the President now offers to defend a policy that is bankrupt, that is a dead end, that has a history of failure. That argument that the administration is making is this: If we leave, there will be chaos. Now, think about it. Those who oppose the war, those who voted against it argue that if we invaded Iraq, in all likelihood the outcome would be the quick toppling of Saddam and the long-term chaos and violence that would follow. The argument that the President rejected then he is embracing now. All of us who oppose the war really do so with a heavy heart because we know that the choices that are available to this country and to the people of Iraq are very constrained and there is going to be untold suffering that lies ahead. We don't have good choices, but the question is what is the right choice that is going to mitigate the suffering? And that right choice has to be to redeploy our troops because the continued presence of the United States through the military emphasizes a military approach to a political problem. And that's why all of us are here doing everything we can to change our direction in Iraq. And I thank you for my opportunity to participate with my wonderful colleagues.