Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the achievements and distinguished career of Merry Trudeau of Eagle, Idaho. Mrs. Trudeau has honorably and diligently served the people of the United States with over 30 years of faithful service to the Internal Revenue Service. Now, you might think it strange that I would stand before you today, Mr. Speaker, to praise the work of a tax collector. But the truth is, Merry has spent her entire career in what friends refer to as ``her true calling''--as an advocate for American taxpayers. She works very closely with the people in her community resolving specific problems related to the Internal Revenue Service. Merry serves as Director of the Tax Payers Advocate Service in Boise, where she leads the effort to provide this priceless resource to my constituents. I might add that she accomplishes her duties in a manner consistent with her excellent character--which my constituents and I describe as sincerely helpful. In Idaho and across the United States, Merry Trudeau has established a reputation as an honest, hardworking leader capable of accomplishing even the most difficult and complex of tasks. She always wears a smile, and eagerly attacks any opportunity to help a constituent. When she retires on July 3, 2006, Idahoans and all Americans will be losing a truly great public servant. The level of responsiveness and accountability that Merry exemplifies as a liaison officer embodies my belief that government must be the people's servant, not their master. It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the accomplishments and career of Mrs. Trudeau, and thanking her for diligent service to Idaho and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, there has been an awful lot of talk the last few days about the FBI's Saturday night raid on the office of a Democrat U.S. Congressman. It's tough for me to get too excited about the howls of protest from members of Congress. I understand their concerns about protecting the independence of the legislative branch and possible abuse of executive powers. But it makes me wonder: Where were these voices of outrage and righteous indignation when we learned the executive branch was monitoring the telephone conversations of ordinary Americans? Where were they when the executive branch sought, and the USA PATRIOT ACT granted, more power to search the homes and businesses of ordinary Americans without notification? At least we know there was a legitimate warrant issued by a judge for the search of the Congressman's office. Are my honorable colleagues suggesting that members of Congress or the institution itself should be treated differently in the eyes of the law than those who hold the most important position in America--that of ``citizen''? I hope not.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House to a most important lesson in civic virtue.

We hear much today about the shortcomings of our education system, about a growing sense of frustration and despair on the part of students, parents and policy makers. Today I have the honor and privilege of telling you about a success story that we all can celebrate.

The heroes in this story are fifth graders at Cecil D. Andrus Elementary School in Meridian, Idaho. I recently received almost 30 letters from these young Americans requesting that I do whatever I could to stop Congress from removing funds that pay for the ``We the People . . .'' civic education program at schools throughout America. Mr. Speaker, these students are to be congratulated and encouraged to continue participating in the process of our government, to fully realize their potential as citizens of our great nation.

I also congratulate their teacher, Heidi Fry and their principal, Barbara Horn, whose dedication and example have worked their magic with these students.

The ``We the People . . .'' program is funded through the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. It was established in 1987 under the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution.

Letter upon letter from the students at Andrus Elementary related stories about lessons they had learned through the ``We the People . . .'' program--visionary quotations from the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution, the history of the documents that became our blueprints for freedom, and how leaders of the founding generation knew that survival of our new American Republic would require each successive generation to learn and embrace the value, price and responsibility of living in a free country.

No greater testament could exist to the value of this educational program than the words of these young people, Mr. Speaker. No more compelling argument could be made for its continued existence in our schools. I therefore gave them my word I would do what I could to restore the funding.

As a side note, the namesake of the school those children attend-- Cecil D. Andrus--was Secretary of the Interior during the Carter administration and four times was elected governor of the great state of Idaho. I served with Governor Andrus as Lieutenant Governor during his third and forth terms. He was a leader who put great store in the value of educating Idaho's young people to prepare them for shouldering the responsibility of freedom and the stewardship of our human and natural resources. He also placed great importance on people meaning what they say and keeping their word--especially those in positions of public trust.

In closing I should like to add the names of these students to the Congressional Record so that one day in the not-too-distant future, when citizens of Idaho and this Nation are reviewing the background of their generation's leaders, I'm confident these names will surely be among them.

Elaine Beech, Natalie Bowman, Steven Bowman, Ashley Charles, Nicole Covell, Madisson Cutbirth, Alejandro Delaloza, Cole DeSilvia, Joneya Dunn, Amber French, Talia Johnson, Corey Kerensky, Joseph Koetter, Jordan Lee, Brian Luke, Taylor McQuiston, Summer Moffet, JT Moore, Brianna Pantell, Courtney Paul, Dillon Pierce, Zach Poralla, Rhett Suciu, Eric Swider, Jakob Thompson, Lindsay Williams, and Chanel Zeko.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all my colleagues to recognize the value of the ``We the People . . .'' program and help me restore the funding. Let's keep our word to these Idaho students, and to the generations of American students yet to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to an entrepreneur and philanthropist from my district whose initiative and vision are an inspiration to all Idahoans.

Duane B. Hagadone began his modest career selling newspaper subscriptions. With hard work and passion Duane worked his way up to editor, then owner of that newspaper. Much later he founded one of the most successful diversified publishing and hospitality businesses in Idaho history, the Hagadone Corporation.

On December 9, 2004, this lifelong resident of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, was inducted into the Horatio Alger Association, an organization that honors those who have overcome adversity and modest beginnings to achieve success. He now serves on that association's board of directors, and through determination and leadership has provided countless scholarships for underprivileged high school seniors.

Duane B. Hagadone was inducted into the Idaho Hall of Fame, and was named Most Influential North Idaho Citizen for the past 5 years for his many contributions to the welfare of Idaho and its citizens.

Duane B. Hagadone shines as a leader in the field of business and public works. He has given back endlessly to the State of Idaho and embodies a sense of civic virtue that makes him one of our state's greatest advocates and most valuable assets. I hope the House will join me in acknowledging Duane B. Hagadone's many contributions to Idaho, and his continuing example to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the vacated time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, in ``The Glorious Quest,'' James R. Evans wrote, ``No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours.''

I bring this to our attention, Mr. Speaker, because recently in a poll that was revealed by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum, a survey found out that on questions on the first amendment, one American in a thousand could name all five of the freedoms in the first amendment to the Constitution. However, in that same survey, 69 percent of those surveyed knew who the five members of the TV cartoon family ``The Simpsons'' was. They knew and could name all five members of the Simpson family.

I bring this to our attention because now more than ever, Mr. Evans' words ought to ring clear to us. And in that glorious quest that he talked about, educating ourselves and then using that education for political action was one of the most important things that we could do as Americans to sustain our form of government.

I bring this to our attention as well, because oftentimes I relish the opportunity to speak to students in my district, especially those in the honors government class. Invariably when I ask those students, whether they be high school seniors not too far off from casting their first vote to sustain this Republic, or to college freshmen somewhere in the curriculum, I ask them: Where do your freedoms come from? What are the source of your freedoms?

Many times they will raise their hand and say it is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Only one in a thousand can name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. Those students are sorely fit, I would say, to go forward and lead this great Nation under our constitutional form of government, because, as I usually explain to them, actually the 10 amendments are a document of prohibition, not a document of establishment of freedoms. That is your birthright from when you were born.

That was the great magic of the Founding Fathers. For the first time, they elevated the individual above the crown, above the king, above royalty, above all else except he who created them. For the first time, the individual was elevated higher than anyone else on this Earth.

If I might, let me briefly read from the first 10 amendments. Amendment I: The prohibition. Congress shall make no laws.

Amendment II: Shall not be infringed.

Amendment III: Without the consent of the owner.

Amendment IV: The right of the people shall not be violated.

Amendment V: No person shall be held, nor shall any person be subjected, nor shall any person be compelled, nor shall any person be deprived, nor shall any private property be taken without just compensation.

Finally, amendment VIII: Shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor crucial and unusual punishment inflicted.

These are all documents of prohibition because they recognize that the first 10 amendments were not the source of our freedom. That is our birthright. These are documents of prohibition against government action.

So if only one in a thousand can tell us what those first five freedoms are, how can they establish, then, the freedom of speech and religion and press, and freedom to address the government with our grievances; and finally, the freedom of assembly. Two of the most important elements, at one time or another, to resist our government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by pointing once again to one of the Founding Fathers, which I often do, maybe to the boredom of some, but it was Ben Franklin, as he walked out of a little church in Philadelphia, who was asked by a citizen, Mr. Franklin, what form of government have you given us?

And he said, Madam, we have given you a republic. And it will fall to each and every generation to defend, to sustain, and to improve it.

Mr. Speaker, with the results of that poll, I would tell you that we are tardy in our work and we need to pick up the speed and educate our people as to the form of government that we got.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House to the brave men and women from my district returning home from fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq.

During a visit to Iraq last year, I was fortunate enough to witness firsthand these patriots' dedication to their country and commitment to expanding the frontiers of freedom. I also was reminded of the great sacrifice that they and their families make to secure the blessings of liberty to all Americans, and help bring hope to people who have been oppressed for decades.

From decorated Marine Sergeant Luke B. Miller's selfless rescue of critically injured Marines in Karabilah to the opening of a medical clinic in Kikuk by the 116th Brigade Combat Team, these men and women serve as an example of our mission to fight terrorism and tyranny wherever it exists. The heroic efforts of these and many other individuals bring great and lasting credit to Idaho and all American armed forces.

I encourage my colleagues to join me, Mr. Speaker, in applauding and recognizing the exemplary individuals from Idaho who are returning home from Iraq. Their courage, dedication, and patriotism truly mark them as America's newest generation of heroes. They deserve our utmost respect and heartfelt thanks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3855.

Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of this body a recent column that appeared on Monday, October 24, 2005, in my hometown newspaper, The Idaho Statesman. It was written by syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette, and it makes some very important and relevant points about personal responsibility, parental responsibility, the problem of illegal immigration and the children it victimizes. I hope that our colleagues will take the opportunity to read it, and perhaps gain a new perspective on an issue that is growing in urgency across America.

[From The Idaho Statesman, Oct. 24, 2005]

Illegal Immigrants Are Criminals

(By Ruben Navarrette)

I get accused of always defending Latinos. But sometimes

what they really need is a good scolding.

Like on those occasions when Latino activists go into left

field and start advocating totally impractical policies that

add nothing to the national discourse on important and

controversial issues.

I got an earful of that recently when I was asked to join

in a town hall meeting in Dallas organized by Hispanic CREO,

a Washington-based educational reform group dedicated to

giving Latino parents more choices regarding their children's

education.

My fellow panelists and I were expected to talk about

education and how Latinos could demand and receive more from

public schools that are doing future generations a disservice

with a mixture of neglect, excuses and low expectations.

My own solution to the educational crisis is all about

self-help. Latinos can't sit around waiting for teachers and

principals to suddenly develop higher expectations for them.

Rather, Latino parents need to understand the power they have

to pressure those students to take tougher classes, work

harder and get grades that are so good no one can keep them

down.

The same principle applies to the subject that the audience

really wanted to talk about above all others: illegal

immigration. And it was during that discussion that reality

went out the window.

It started when a woman who identified herself as a teacher

asked what she was supposed to tell parents (who were illegal

immigrants) about why their children (who were also here

illegally) couldn't go to college or apply for financial aid,

even after they had worked hard and earned good grades.

You see, typically, the pursuit of higher education

requires a valid Social Security number, which illegal

immigrants don't have. Some states also require that

undocumented immigrant students pay exorbitantly high out-of-

state tuition rates, even if they and their families have

lived in that particular state and paid taxes for years.

My answer to the question shocked some in the mostly Latino

audience: Tell the parents they made a terrible mistake when

they came into the country illegally, and that they

compounded that mistake every day that they stayed here

without legal documentation. Explain to them that our actions

have consequences and that one consequence of their decision

to trespass across the border into the United States is that

they and their children were destined to live lives that

may never realize their full potential. Make them understand

that, while they may be splendid parents in every other way,

they did their children a great disservice by leaving them to

wander in the shadows.

Whether they can go to college is the least of their

worries. I don't care if the children are honor students,

they can be picked up and deported at any time. And now,

unless there are substantial legislative changes--like the

enactment of the federal Dream Act championed by Sen. Orrin

Hatch, R-Utah, which would allow illegal immigrant students

to attend college--there is not much any of us can do for

these children.

The good news is that there is still quite a bit that

parents can do for their children. They can contact an

immigration lawyer or a low-cost legal clinic and ask how it

is that one begins the long and often expensive process for

obtaining legal residency.

I told the crowd that I knew of one person who spent 12

years and more than $12,000 to convert her status, and that

of her son, from ``illegal'' to ``legal.'' That brought

gasps. Apparently, that sounded like a lot of money. It

isn't, I told them. It's $1,000 per year, or about $80 a

month.

I know immigrants who spend that on their monthly cell

phone bill, and this is much more important. If these illegal

immigrant parents don't want to do it for themselves, then

they should do it for their children.

I received scattered applause, but it was nothing compared

to the rousing response that went to another panelist--Raul

Yzaguirre, former president of the National Council of La

Raza--when he said that he didn't like the term ``illegal

immigrant'' because he didn't think that people who came to

this country to feed their families should be considered

criminals.

What else would we call them? They broke the law. We can be

sympathetic to their plight without condoning their actions.

In order for Latinos to make real progress, first they have

to stay in the real world.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct.

We have heard much from many sides about the USA PATRlOT Act-- concerns about what the bill does, statements about what it does not do, and fears about what it could do in the future. We have shared these discussions with constituents, state and local officials, businesses, librarians, and other government agencies.

But earlier this year we had an important opportunity to move those conversations back to Congress to examine--in a light much more clear and objective than that in which we passed the original bill--how the PATRlOT Act has protected us from further terrorist attack, and also how balance between national security and personal security needs to be restored.

As a result of the opportunity to debate, deliberate, and discuss, we made important changes to the original USA PATRlOT Act in H.R. 3199, changes that enable law enforcement to continue to investigate and prosecute crime while protecting civil liberties. Congress was able to go back and make those changes because the original bill included a sunset and made many questionable provisions subject to it.

This sunset served us well, and so I am perplexed that in the same bill where we made vital revisions to the USA PATRlOT Act we also eliminated many of the sunsets and extended others for a decade or more. In doing so, H.R. 3199 takes away from Congress the opportunity to periodically review these provisions and ensure that the tools they provide law enforcement are necessary and that they are not being abused.

I am glad that, in respect to Sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRlOT Act, the Senate did not act as rashly as we did. I strongly urge conferees to see the wisdom of four-year sunsets for these sections, as passed by the Senate, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my support to S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

I also commend Senator Larry Craig from Idaho on his leadership on this legislation, defending Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, S. 397, is bipartisan, common-sense legislation that takes an important step toward preventing reckless lawsuits targeting the firearms industry. Such misguided claims against the legal manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition are akin to suing the Postal Service or an envelope manufacturer over someone committing the crime of mail fraud--it just doesn't make sense. The bill provides protection for those in the firearms industry from lawsuits arising from the acts of people who criminally or unlawfully misuse their products. The bill preserves citizen access to firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting and competitive or recreational shooting.

I believe that manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition must be protected from restrictions on interstate or foreign commerce. In light of the concerted efforts by opponents of the Second Amendment to destroy the gun industry through frivolous lawsuits, it has become imperative that we protect the jobs and economic well-being of the thousands of people who work for manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition. I find the idea of holding an industry liable for the criminal misuse of their legal products deplorable. Our nation cannot allow the innocent to pay for the dealings of the guilty, or we circumvent the very foundation of the rule of law. It is the individuals who commit violent crimes, not the makers of the means, who must take personal responsibility for their actions through the restitution and civil penalties affirmed by law. This should be the case whether or not a firearm was used to commit the crime.

Without this legislation, further unfounded lawsuits against the gun industry will lead inevitably to an encroachment upon our Second Amendment rights. Congress must work diligently to reduce the level of political rhetoric surrounding gun control, protect the Second Amendment, and promote the role of personal responsibility in society.

This bill is a key element of our effort to bring some sanity to what's become a thriving personal injury industry in this country. Americans understand that suing legitimate firearms manufacturers and dealers out of existence won't stop criminal gun violence. But trial lawyers are eager to cash in on the pain of victims, and criminals rarely have deep pockets. This puts the responsibility where it belongs.

I joined my colleagues in the House in passing similar legislation during the 108th Congress. That unfortunately got held up in the Senate. I am hopeful we will take the opportunity today to pass this bill with no changes so it can go to the President's desk for a signature. This legislation is long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to a school from my district that has received the No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools award from the United States Department of Education.

St. Mary's Catholic Elementary School, in Moscow, Idaho, stands as the only school in the State of Idaho to receive this prestigious and important educational award. This award honors public and private K-12 schools that are either academically superior in their states or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement.

St. Mary's School strives to encourage its students to grow spiritually; to develop a lifelong love of learning and to achieve their highest personal and academic potential. This mission represents and promotes the State of Idaho and the enormous potential of its people.

The children of America are our most valuable asset. St. Mary's school provides a successful K-6 academic program and exemplifies the high quality of education and emphasis on learning in my great State. I hope the House will join me in acknowledging St. Mary's Catholic Elementary School's achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the gentleman from California for the great work he has done in getting the Endangered Species Act reform to the floor. This is a very controversial issue, and he and the committee should be commended for working to address some of the real problems in the current law.

There are a couple of provisions for which I have been a strong proponent, and I am pleased that the chairman has agreed to include them in the manager's amendment.

My first amendment is a common-sense one aimed at empowering electricity consumers with the ``right to know'' what they are paying for. This amendment simply seeks to provide ``sunshine'' and transparency to the way our Federal Government does business.

Specifically, the provision requires that each of the Power Marketing Administrations, the Bonneville Power Administration, Western Area Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the Southeastern Power Administration, to include costs related to the Endangered Species Act in their customers' monthly electricity billings.

In the Pacific Northwest alone, the Bonneville Power Administration accounts for 45 percent of the region's electricity sales and 75 percent of the transmission lines.

Bonneville Power's rates have risen 46 percent since 2001, due in main part to the Endangered Species Act's impact on the Columbia/Snake hydropower system. The Agency spends an average of $500 million per year on ESA compliance. To whom are these costs passed on to? Of course, the electricity ratepayers.

The point of all this, Mr. Speaker, is that few Pacific Northwest consumers have a notion of the amount of money of their monthly bills that goes directly towards the Endangered Species Act compliance, nor do they or other end-user consumers of the other Power Marketing Administrations. It is estimated that as much as one third of the power bill from the BPA is devoted to salmon recovery, but no one knows for sure.

I get a bill once a month from the power company that includes all sorts of information about tips on conserving energy and warnings on how to keep me from electrocuting myself, but nowhere does it detail what I am paying for. How much is for generating power and how much is for transmission costs and how much is for the ESA?

I would like to thank the chairman for including language in the bill that consolidates jurisdiction of the Endangered Species Act management of species under one agency. During my first term in Congress, I introduced legislation that did just that, and I am pleased to see the concept is finally moving forward.

NOAA Fisheries originally was part of the Department of Interior until 1970, when NOAA was created under the Department of Commerce to address federal management of commercial and tribal fisheries. This was prior to the enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Now the Agency's mission of managing commercial and tribal harvests of salmon and recovering endangered species are in conflict.

NOAA Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife Service have differing processes for handling and permitting thousands of activities that must undergo federal conciliation under the ESA and competing science on how best to manage the species. It would be better for the species and for cost-effective government management to have one process that works.

Consolidation of agencies managing the ESA will eliminate duplication and allow scarce Federal resources to be focused on achieving the true objective of the Endangered Species Act, the recovery of species through science-based management.

I encourage Members to support the rule, the manger's amendment, and the bill and oppose the Miller-Boehlert substitute that lacks all the property rights protection that the Committee on Resources has worked so hard to restore. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in my other life I was a salesman. As a salesman, I negotiated a few trade agreements, trade agreements between my potato company in Idaho and McDonald's all over the world; in fact, 82 foreign countries.

I would venture to say that I could challenge anybody on this floor that I sold more potatoes, more French fries, more product for more money than probably anybody else in the United States Congress. So let me come at this from a little different perspective, and the reason I want to come at it from a little different perspective is because I cannot flimflam. I cannot overpromise and underdeliver hoping that people will forget in a couple of years, a la NAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, when I was working, my boss said, you come home with an order, you come home with an agreement, you get an agreement from somebody, you better perform on it.

So I would do this tonight, Mr. Speaker. I would tell Members, everybody that wants to adopt this agreement, put your job on the line. If in 2 years all of the things that you say are going to come true do not come true, quit. Quit the United States House of Representatives, because, my friends, you are the salesmen for the United States.

If you want to stand behind this trade agreement, you go ahead. But I am not; I would not risk, if I were you, your job on this, because as Patrick Henry said, I have been one lamp that guides my path into the future, and that is the lamp of experience.

We have experienced NAFTA. And by the way, as we stand on the shoulders of those Founding Fathers that built the very foundation of philosophy and politics that we stand on today, let me also quote George Washington who said, If to please the people we promise that which we ourselves disprove, how will we later defend our work?

You will not be able to defend your work, folks. Give it up.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss perhaps the most fundamental of the reasons for my opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA--the serious conflicts it raises with private property rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that CAFTA contains 1,000 pages of international law establishing, among other things, property rights for foreign investors that may impose restrictions on U.S. land- use policy. Chapter 10 of CAFTA outlines a system under which foreign investors operating in the United States are granted greater property rights than U.S. law provides for our own citizens!

Mr. Speaker, that's not encouraging free trade. That's giving away our natural resources and our national sovereignty. CAFTA would empower foreign investors to go to UN and World Bank tribunals to challenge state and federal policies here in the United States regarding property rights that violate their assumed ``investor rights.'' Those foreign investors then could demand compensation in the form of U.S. taxpayer dollars for the losses caused by complying with the same domestic policies and regulations that apply to all U.S. citizens and businesses.

The standards for property rights protection that are used by the UN and World Bank to award U.S. taxpayer dollars to foreign investors would NOT be those of the U.S. Constitution, but rather international property rights standards set forth in CAFTA, as interpreted by an international tribunal. And I'm not the only one upset about this. No less than the Conference of State Supreme Court Chief Justices is among those concluding that CAFTA provides greater property rights to foreign investors than U.S. law provides you and me as U.S. citizens!

Furthermore, current rules under Trade Promotion Authority granted by Congress require that trade pacts grant to foreign investors ``no greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than U.S. investors in the United States.'' Yet even a cursory review reveals that CAFTA fails the test on both counts. Although some words included in NAFTA's investor protection system were changed in CAFTA, the changes were simply procedural and not substantive.

Instead of basing foreign investors' property rights on U.S. law, as Congress requires, CAFTA provides foreign investors in the United States with a ``minimum standard of treatment'' set forth by ``customary international law'' and established in ``principle legal systems of the world.'' The effect is to throw U.S. sovereignty and property rights out the window in the name of ``free trade.'' CAFTA exceeds U.S. law by empowering foreign investors to go to international tribunals in an effort to be compensated in U.S. taxpayer dollars for regulatory takings.

Furthermore, new language in CAFTA almost unbelievably extends the outrageous benefits of this foreign investor-state dispute resolution system to corporations that have a ``written agreement'' with the federal government regarding ``natural resources or other assets that a national authority controls.'' For example, foreign investors could circumvent the U.S. court system entirely by bringing arbitrary challenges over oil and gas, mining, and water contracts to an international tribunal. If a foreign investor is granted a land concession for logging and, as a condition of the contract, is told that the trees must be replanted, the foreign investor can challenge the requirement to replant as an infringement on their ``foreign investor rights'' and ``minimum standard of treatment'' through UN and World Bank tribunals. The U.S. logging company down the street can only go through U.S. courts and has no such special rights.

The very notion that international tribunals should get a say in how we manage U.S. property rights and grant concessions on U.S. land is simply unacceptable. Opening new markets between Central America and the United States is one thing. Asking me to cede decisions over U.S. natural resources and property rights to international tribunals while giving foreigners greater rights to our land than our own citizens have is something else entirely. I won't accept it, and neither should you.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership that we are getting on this.

This is a very difficult time for me because I have been a Republican all my life, and one of the things that I have fought for more than anything else is fairness. Do I always agree with one side or the other? Not always. My entire political career I have spent trying to just maintain balance.

The interesting thing that was brought up earlier in the debate, as I watched it from my office on this rule, was that the very thing that the PATRIOT Act is supposed to give to this country, that the proponents of it say gives to this country, is being denied on this floor today, and it is being denied because I think people are afraid to be exposed to the truth.

John Stuart Mill one time said, in certain occasions, there are people that are unfit for liberty. Let us not prove to ourselves because of temporary panic or momentary discouragement or in a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, we are suddenly unworthy of our Founding Fathers' efforts in order to provide liberty to the folks first, not from the government, but from our birthright.

So I am embarrassed to be on this side of the aisle from this aspect today. Certainly, I know that there are well-intended people on both sides, and I tried to work out a lot of things on both sides of this aisle on the PATRIOT Act. But I can tell my colleagues that with this rule and the lack of full and complete discussion, we have put a gag rule, the same gag rule that the FBI and the CIA and the NSA or any other government agent can put on the folks at the library or down at your local business and say, I want all of those records, but you are not allowed to use them.

So it is unfortunate that we have come to this. It is unfortunate that we have come to this time at this moment, because we have done so much and we have so many reasons to be proud. But this is a very embarrassing moment when we are afraid to confront the truth and the full and unabashed debate on a subject that is so dear to us as this deserves.