Welcome!
The lobbying scandals reverberating in Washington, D.C. are just the latest symptom of the out-of-control money chase in Washington, D.C. We really do have the best Congress money can buy. That's not good in terms of meeting the needs and priorities of a majority of Oregonians.
I believe as many Oregonians do, that the policies coming from Congress and the White House are taking this country in the wrong direction on a host of issues both domestically and internationally. The public's interests are not well served by a Congress that has become more of a lap-dog for special interests than a watch-dog for the needs and priorities of a majority of Americans.
It's time for a change in Washington, D.C.
Too many members of Congress, and candidates for Congress, are willing to bow to the wishes of the President, party leaders and special interest groups, even when they know -- or should know -- in their hearts, that those mis-guided policies are not in the best interests of a majority of the constituents they represent and the future of our country.
During my time in Congress, I've stood up to Presidents and leaders of both parties. When a very popular President Bill Clinton was ready to jam through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which I thought would undermine the economic viability of this country and the standard of living of working men and women here at home, I was outspoken in my opposition.
When President Bush first sought a blank check to go to war in Iraq, I fought to stop it.
When the Democratic leadership in the 1990's rushed to pass something called the Catastrophic Health Care Act for seniors, I was one of only a handful of Democrats that stood up and said no. And shortly after it went into effect if had to be repealed because it was something seniors didn't want, didn't need and couldn't afford.
When the Republicans, backed by the immensely powerful and well-funded pharmaceutical industry, jammed through a highly-expensive, complicated so-called Medicare Prescription Drug benefit program, I helped lead the fight against it. And we fought them to a virtual tie until the Republicans changed the rules and kept the vote open for four hours until they twisted enough arms to get it passed by the narrowest of margins.
It's time for a change in Washington, D.C.
Seniors can't afford anymore late night shenanigans.
I have never sought to do what people demanded of me, or even what was currently popular, but rather, I have worked and voted for policies that I believed are in the best long-term interests of those I represent.
When I was first a candidate for Congress, I went around the district and met with groups trying to get their support. I remember getting word back from a group that I didn't get their endorsement, not because they didn't like me, but because they felt I couldn't get elected because I tell people what I think.
Well, I think there's a market for elected officials who will tell people what they think, not just what they want to hear, and they must be consistent.
This is a huge and politically diverse district. I travel back and forth between Washington, DC and the district, and around the district a lot to try and stay in touch. I have got support and respect from some pretty unlikely places over the years. I meet with people all the time and who say I'm a Republican, and I don't always agree with you, but I always know where you stand and I respect that and I vote for you.
I think it's time for people in Washington, D.C. to be consistent. I don't have a different message for people in Sweet Home versus people in Eugene, or a different message in Springfield than in Brookings. I tell them all the same thing - what I believe.
In a highly partisan Washington, DC, I've earned respect and can get things done. There's $200 million in that law to deal with the very serious problem of cracked and failing bridges along I-5 and in other parts of Oregon. That's the single greatest allocation in TEA-LU for any Democrat - House or Senate, and it's the 5th largest allocation in the entire House of Representatives. Only we didn't stop there.
As the principle Democratic negotiator for the House, I was able to get changes in the state funding formula and local match requirements. Those provisions coupled with the bridge money total $450 million more than Oregon would have received under the old formula or the formula proposed in the original bill. Four hundred and fifty million dollars over five years -- that will put 20,000 people to work investing in our future and our transportation efficiency -- those are good paying jobs with benefits and will help make our state better.
In fact, at the end of the debate on the bill, Speaker Hastert, a Republican, called me and another Democrat up to the dias and gave us gavels he used during the floor proceedings. I had Republicans come up to me and say the Speaker gave you a gavel? He's never given me a gavel. I think that shows that I've been able to work across party lines for the best interest of my district and the state. But, when it isn't in the best interest of the people I represent, I'll work against the majority and even my own party.
I want to apply those skills to a host of issues in the coming years. And I have to say that for the first time in 10 years, there is a chance the Democrats can take back the House this fall. If they do, that would give me a chance to wield that gavel the Speaker gave me. But in the interim, it's not enough to just say no. Democrats need to lead, and lead in a different direction. There are tough fights ahead.
First, we need to get full reauthorization and full funding for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act - the county payments. We need that compact between the federal government and our counties, schools and communities in SW Oregon extended.
We stopped the President and Wall Street in their rush to privatize Social Security, but we need a solution and I've offered one. I need to get my party to support it. There's some reluctance because it would ask the wealthiest among us to pay the Social Security withholding at the same rate as the poorest among us do.
As I said before, the Republicans passed the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug benefit program. And there's a real need for one. I've met with seniors who literally cut their pills in half because they can't afford them otherwise. I've talked to pharmacists who have had couples come up to the window with a handful of prescriptions and ask for the cost of each drug this month and they walk away and sit down and figure out which one of them gets their meds that month based on what they cost and how much they can afford to spend on them that month. That's not the America I want.
But in the dark of night, in the face of great need on the part of our seniors, the Republicans passed a phoney prescription drug plan. They used seniors as an excuse to shove billions of dollars in subsidies to the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of taxpayers and seniors. They shoveled billions in subsidies at the insurance industry and created an unbelievably complex, complicated, indecipherable plan, when we could have done it differently and provided real relief for all Americans. And if the Democrats take back control of Congress, they will do it differently. We will provide a simple, affordable plan that will save the taxpayers and seniors money.
It's been five years since Dick Cheney wrote the energy bill -- in secret. The administration and Republican majority labored to pass a so-called energy plan for the United States of America. We managed to hold them off for almost four years because it wasn't targeted toward the real needs of the country. It would have been an un-enlightened energy policy for the 1950's, let alone the 21st Century. It was full of subsidies for the oil and gas industries. Like they need any more subsidies -- particularly when they're raking in record profits and consumers are paying record prices at the pump. The taxpayers are going to borrow money to give them incentives to go out and find more oil and gas - that's the biggest part of the energy bill.
Now the president's converted on the issue. In the State of the Union speech, he said he wants to wean us from our dependence on oil and wants to invest more in alternative fuels and new technologies. The only problem is, if President Kennedy had proposed funding to go to the moon at the same rate President Bush has proposed for new energy alternatives, we wouldn't have made it to the moon yet. We need much more robust funding to help get America on a more sustainable track, one that will allow us to be more energy self-sufficient, and improve our economic security.
I can't continue without talking about the situation in Iraq. I opposed going to war, but now that we're there, I have to be part of getting us out. I not only spoke out against the President's rush to war, but Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and I introduced a resolution before we went – after some of the lies had been uncovered about need to go to war -- and we thought Congress ought to have an opportunity to reconsider the broad grant of authority they gave the President. We tried to force a vote on the resolution but the Republican majority wouldn't allow it.
We need a plan. We need a time-line. I'm of the firm opinion that even though the administration couldn't understand that the Shia, Kurds and Sunni's had differences over the past 1,400 years, others did anticipate there would be problems with the peace. The question is how do we now knit them back together? I don't believe that by saying we will stay there forever, if necessary, that will help them resolve their differences.
I believe our country would be better served, and the Iraqis as a country would be better served, if we have a plan and a time-line to bring our troops home honorably and let Iraq stand on its own.
We do need real security. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee and if you read the report by the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission, you'll find we're failing the American people. But, we're not failing because we don't have ideas, or technology, no, we're failing because this administration is failing to fund those things at levels necessary to protect our ports, airports other critical infrastructure, and our borders. Instead, they're engaged in rushing into contracts with Dubai to run our ports because commerce is the most important thing to them -- not the security of our people. That's wrong.
We've got a flood of red-ink. You can go to my congressional website and look at the debt clock – it's kinda depressing to watch it grow, but demonstrates that it's well past time that we asked the wealthiest among us and most profitable corporations to pay their fair share of the burden to help defray that deficit and debt.
I have never understood this idea, and now they're trying to pass it in Oregon, that we'll do away with the corporate kicker if we give tax cuts to everyone. Why is it people who invest for a living should pay taxes at one-half or one-quarter the rate that someone who labors 40 or 60 hours or more a week? Why not tax both at the same rate? If the wealthy investors pay at the same rate as the people who work by the sweat of their brow, we'd have a better funded, more equitable tax system.
And we can cut waste. Out of the budget funding all of the federal programs in the United States of America, the two programs that took the biggest cuts were student financial aide and health care for poor and struggling families. Not subsidies to oil and gas industries, or insurance companies, not corporate tax havens in the Bahamas, but students, seniors and struggling working families. And those priorities have got to change in this country.
Fighting for more jobs is also at the heart of my efforts in Congress -- jobs that pay better, have better benefits, are readily available, and provide a chance for young people to do better than their parents. Many are losing faith that our country provides that opportunity anymore, it doesn't have to be that way. With changes in trade policy, tax policy, budget priorities, social programs that are essential like prescription drugs and Social Security, we can have an America where we all do better, but it requires a change in direction in Washington, DC. You might be surprised that after 20 years in Congress, I'm still the one that wants to make changes, not going along to get along like everything's okay the way it is.
Thank you very much for your support. Let's make change happen this fall.
Congressman Peter DeFazio
Oregon's Fouth Congressional District
|
Letter
to Senator Clinton and Senator Obama - Sign on!
