Floor Statements

Well, following up on the theme of the failed fiscal policy of the Bush administration, I would like to emphasize two points made by my colleague.

The President's bragging on a $300 billion deficit. That means the government's borrowing about $800 million a day, $800 million a day to run the government, and they are handing the bill to future generations. He is bragging on that as great achievement, but that is not the whole story. He is also borrowing $182 billion from the Social Security surplus this year. So he is also borrowing from present and future generations. The total borrowing by the Federal Government this year will be $482 billion, and the President's bragging on it, and that means we are borrowing $1.3 billion a day to run the government, borrowing against the future, sending the bill to working Americans because we do not want to tax the rich people anymore, and the corporations are moving offshore to avoid taxes.

It is an extraordinarily fiscally irresponsible position for this government, and it is just part of the many failures of this administration, but I am going to talk about another failure today, one where the President has said we are also setting new records, trade policy.

America, month after month after month, is running larger and larger trade deficits. We are hemorrhaging jobs overseas to countries that exploit labor, countries like China where people work for 25 cents an hour they are so desperate, where they are not allowed to form labor unions, where U.S. capital is feeding their technological investment from corporations who are moving away from our country but want to sell their goods here.

Our trade deficit with China was $17.7 billion last month. One month, we borrowed $500 million a day from China to buy stuff from them that we used to make here in the United States of America. That is not sustainable. We are losing the jobs and we are mortgaging our future, and someday that debt is going to be called in by the Chinese and others.

The trade deficit overall went up to $63.8 billion. We are on track to have a trade deficit of $765 billion this year. Now, that is a lot of numbers. What does that mean? We are borrowing over $2 billion a day, $2 billion a day from foreign interests, number one being China, number two Japan, and others, to buy stuff made overseas that we used to make here. And the Bush administration touts this as a great success, free trade. Why?

Well, because the corporate CEOs, who have outsourced their jobs to China, are getting huge and growing compensation, an average of $12 million. They live in gated communities. They send their kids to private schools. They fly on private jets. They go to private resorts. They do not care about public infrastructure or public education. They do not care about the rest of us in this country. They do not even care about the American workers anymore because they are making stuff overseas. All they do is hope our credit cards hold up a little bit longer so we can buy more of the stuff they made over there that might be a tiny bit cheaper and put it on the credit card and they can cash in and get out of town before this house of cards collapses.

So we are borrowing over $1.4 billion a day to run the government. We are borrowing $2 billion a day to buy stuff made overseas, and President Bush is telling the American people that things are great and getting better, but on Main Street, America, they know that is not true.

Now, in the country clubs and in the boardrooms, sure, better than ever. Corporate CEO pay went up last year about 10 percent, about $1 million on average, which happens to be 100 times what a minimum-wage earner earns in this country. That was just their increase. The minimum wage has not gone up in 9 years. The Republicans refuse to bring it to the floor of the House because they are favoring these corporate CEOs. God forbid, they should pay more in taxes, and God forbid, they should have to pay the minimum-wage people who wait on their tables, who park their cars and who mow their lawns any more money. It would be a hardship for those rich folks.

So this is the Bush economic success. We are borrowing from overseas. We are borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund. We are borrowing from other investors. We are financing it on the credit card, and they tout this as great for our country and a strong economy. What a lie.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Oregon State University's 2006 baseball team on their College World Series Championship June 26, 2006. This title is a fitting ending to a truly remarkable season for the Beavers. The team has made Oregon proud; this is a victory for fans throughout the state.

I'd like to recognize the individual coaches and players not only for their victory, but also for their teamwork and sportsmanship which undoubtedly contributed to this accomplishment for the team and the university. Head Coach Pat Casey, Coaches Marty Lees and Dan Spencer, Assistant Coach David Wong and Strength and Conditioning Coach Andy Dendas.

Players: Erik Ammon, Sophomore; Darwin Barney, Sophomore; Bret Bochsler, Freshman; Reed Brown, Sophomore; Dallas Buck, Junior; Brian Budrow, Freshman; Mitch Canham, Sophomore; Bryn Card, Freshman; Brett Casey, Freshman; Cory Ellis, Freshman; Derek Engelke, Sophomore; Josh Forgue, Freshman; Cole Gillespie, Junior; Ryan Gipson, Senior; Tyler Graham, Junior; Mark Grbavac, Freshman; Kevin Gunderson, Junior; Koa Kahalehoe, Freshman; Greg Keim, Junior; Jon Koller, Senior; Chris Kunda, Senior; Eddie Kunz, Sophomore; Joey Lakowske, Freshman; Greg Laybourn, Freshman; Lonnie Lechelt, Sophomore; Mike Lissman, Junior; Anton Maxwell, Junior; Jake McCormick, Junior; Shea McFeely, Senior; Jonah Nickerson, Junior; Joe Paterson, Sophomore; Casey Priceman, Sophomore; Sean Rockey, Freshman; Bill Rowe, Senior; Scott Santschi, Junior; Alex Sogard, Freshman; Dale Solomon, Freshman; Michael Stutes, Sophomore; Rob Summers, Freshman; Daniel Turpen, Sophomore; Geoff Wagner, Senior; John Wallace, Freshman.

As the underdog team throughout much of the tournament Oregon State truly impressed us with their resilience. Oregon State is the first team in 16 years to win their first College World Series game and national title in the same season. The support of the community and fans contributed much to the spirit that followed this team through their victory. Of notable credit, Jonathan Casey, son of Coach Pat Casey inspired us all with his unbreakable belief in Oregon State Baseball.

Oregon State is the first Northern-based school to win the College World Series in 40 years, I hope that this is a new trend in athletics throughout Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. Congratulations Beavers on a hard-fought and well-earned championship.

There is a lot of lip service paid in this Congress and downtown at the White House about family values and small business. Who better represents family values and small business than the fishermen and women on the Oregon and California coast.

This administration has told them we are going to restrict the fishing season to a point where you cannot afford to go out; you can only catch 75 fish in one trip. Nobody can afford to go far out to catch 75 fish, so no one is fishing.

But they won't declare a disaster because they said someone might fish. They admitted no one is fishing. No one can afford to fish. Well, maybe something will happen. The price of fish will go up, go up to what, $100 a pound? Then maybe they could afford to go out for 75 fish.

This administration is refusing to put its money where its mouth is and deliver and help keep families together, support communities and support small business with a modest amount of disaster assistance. We need a disaster declaration from the White House, and we need it now.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee and my colleagues. We only found out last evening that, despite the facts that are before us, the administration says it will be at least next year before they can determine whether or not there is a disaster for salmon fishers on the Pacific coast.

Bottom line, nobody is fishing. They created a structure where people can only go out and catch 75 fish. It is not worth the fuel to go out. It is clearly a disaster. But the bureaucracy here is resistant to declaring the disaster and getting our folks the assistance they need.

So, with this, this is nowhere near the amount of funds that will be necessary, but to get to conference and within 1 day to have moved this amount of money in the bill, I believe, is a significant step for the House; and I appreciate my colleagues in recognizing the need of people in Oregon and California, those who fish for a living, small businesses and families. They vitally need some help.

I thank the ranking member. I thank the chairman for bringing this bill forward with such dispatch.

The bill, as the chairman has stated, has no budgetary impact. It makes other technical corrections, particularly going to those where we research the future needs and the condition of our interstate system, which will be vital for future transportation initiatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I had an extraordinary meeting with the head of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, Mr. Lautenbacher, and his deputy, Mr. Hogarth. They met with six Members of Congress representing the west coast fishers in the United States, particularly from Oregon down into California.

These gentlemen met with us so we could ask them to ask, in all sincerity, when they are going to declare the salmon fishing season, which has been essentially closed by their agency, a disaster. Their answer was: never. Or maybe next year.

It was an extraordinary meeting. They said that because they allowed an extraordinarily limited season, that is, a fisherman can go out and catch up to 75 salmon, which won't quite pay for the fuel to leave the dock, on a few occasions during the year, that they can't anticipate whether or not it will be a disaster for those folks.

Now, the deputy was a little more honest, and he admitted that it was even worse than they thought. No one is fishing. No one is going out with fuel prices like this, and, in fact, there is virtually no activity. But they thought that people might go out. Maybe the price of fish will go way up. I said, to what, a hundred dollars a pound? What are we talking about? What would induce people to go out into the ocean and catch 75 salmon, a commercial fishing boat? They couldn't answer that.

So we said, your regional counsel recommended a disaster declaration, and you sent it back. When will you process that? They said, oh, well, we have already sent it back again. We said, why did you send it back? They said, well, because they made a recommendation of a disaster.

The people who manage this agency in the region recognized the disaster. They recommended a disaster declaration to the national bureaucrats. The national bureaucrats said, no, you can't do that. They sent it back. They had to strip out their recommendation and then they sent it back and they said, okay.

So when are you going to process all the facts on which they made that determination? They said, not until February. Well, why not until next February? Because people might go out and catch 75 fish, and that might make a difference in whether or not there is a disaster.

It is extraordinary tortured logic. You can't get there from here. So we said, how about you just issue the declaration of a disaster. No, their lawyers say they can't do that. I asked to see the legal opinion. They said, no, they couldn't show me the legal opinion; that they couldn't do that.

We asked to see the recommendation from the regional people about the disaster, and they said, no, you can't have that. You are only Members of Congress representing these people. You can't have those documents because we haven't made a decision yet. When are you going to make a decision? When it is too late for the fishers and their families. When they have already gone bankrupt. Whey they have already lost their boats. That is next winter when they might get around to making a decision about this year's season.

So, then, I said, okay, how about this: why don't you just close down this lame season that you have created, this 75-fish limit on a few days; just close it down, declare a disaster, and get some assistance to the fishers? They said, oh, no, they couldn't do that because they have already made a decision that is based on certain documents, and they couldn't go back on that. I said, just declare an emergency. No, they are not going to do that.

They are getting orders from somewhere higher up in this administration that is embarrassed, embarrassed about the politics, embarrassed that 4 years ago, to make hay in an election year, they diverted water from irrigation, from the river to irrigation. They got headlines. They made great political hay with us with it. Now if they declare a disaster on the returning salmon, the class of that year, they are essentially admitting that they impacted that.

In fact, in the Senate, they have already said that this is not a natural disaster. The Parliamentarian there ruled against emergency assistance by the junior Senator from Oregon, because he said this was not a natural disaster; it is manmade. The Bush Administration made this disaster through their mismanagement of the resources in that region.

So now we have the agency saying they are not going to declare a disaster. I think they are just trying to put the small fishers out of business. What the end game is, I am not sure. Maybe giant aquaculture. Who knows? But the point is they are refusing, despite the request of the Governor of Oregon, the Governor of California, the Senators from Oregon, the Senators from California, a large number of Representatives from Oregon and California, we have all requested a disaster declaration, and the White House is silent, and the bureaucrats say ``no.''

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. 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. 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.

Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.