Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman; and I just want to say that the Corps of Engineers has had water control plans in place for 50 years. The plans are guidelines so that everybody can kind of have some input and some feedback on what is working and what is not.

This is an area that is one of the fastest-growing parts of the United States of America, and their own regulations that the corps has, they know they need to update them.

So what we are saying is let the system that is in place stay in place without Congress inserting language that pulls the rug out from under it. If this needs to be done on a congressional level, then let us do so with all the States' delegations together. Let us not have two States against one State. Let us all sit down and work out a legislative solution if a legislative solution is necessary. I do not think that it is right now.

I think that the best thing for us to do is to let the Corps of Engineers continue to work the process as it has been set up and as it is intended to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman from Ohio for yielding to me.

I wanted to speak tonight, Mr. Chairman, about the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway, which stretches 161 miles from the South Carolina border to the Florida border going through the 1st District of Georgia; and if one measures the number of miles by the coastline, it is probably five or six times that.

I live by the Intercoastal Waterway. I have a boat. My friends have boats. My constituents have boats. The water is filling in, and it is a big problem in terms of recreational boating.

My concern is that the Office of Management and Budget, the OMB, in their formula does not consider the economic impact of a recreational boater when deciding if a waterway should be dredged or not.

In Georgia, for example, the last time we had serious dredging of the Intercoastal Waterway was in 2002. We have asked for $2.5 million for dredging for Georgia 2 years in a row, and because of the tight constraints, the committee has not been able to do that.

It has been the same way with the Senate. They are trying to work on something, too.

Senator Saxby Chambliss and Senator Johnny Isakson and I are all in agreement that this needs to be addressed, but when the Office of Management and Budget is looking at the commercial traffic ranks of the Intercoastal Waterway, they only consider the big tonnage, the commercial shipping. They do not consider the light loading, the recreational boater.

The recreational boater is the guy who goes out there, pulls his children on skis, has a camera, has a cooler, packs a bag of baloney sandwiches, has a lot of Coca-Cola, which in another part of the country he is probably carrying Pepsi, and spends a lot of money on the local economy, a significant amount of money. One marina alone told me that their receipts will be in excess of $500,000. If the Intercoastal Waterway was closed up, then that marina will be gone. Those five to twelve jobs that they have will be gone. The money that his clients bring into the area, buying parts for their boats and related recreational equipment in skis and fishing poles and so forth, that will be gone as well.

We need to get the Office of Management and Budget to change their funding formula so that they will consider the economic impact of the recreational boater just as high or along the same line or with the same yardstick as they do commercial boaters.

I had an amendment to that effect. I have not offered the amendment because this committee has worked so closely with us on a lot of issues. I know that the staff was not exactly appreciative if we were going to try to authorize something on an appropriation bill. It was not appropriate. So I am not offering that amendment, but I know the staff has been very sympathetic to this issue, as have you, Mr. Chairman, and I just wanted to thank you, but say that, along the line, we are not going to let this issue go.

We need to have the Office of Management and Budget change their funding formula, and I intend to pursue legislation on that, and I just wanted to thank you for all the support you have given us on some of the other dredging issues and wanted to make this point, though, on the record.

Mr. Chairman, well, I had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Portman a few minutes ago and just pled the case real briefly with the promise of a follow-up phone call.

I do want to thank you for all the harbor dredging that you have helped us with, Mr. Visclosky has helped us with. The staff has gone above and beyond the call of duty on that. You guys have been magnificent, but we also have this intercoastal problem with the recreational boaters that is a tremendous issue in our area.

So we want to continue to work with you, and I really appreciate everything you have done.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Bonilla, for the great job that he has done, and the leadership that he has provided. And I thank my friend, Rosa DeLauro, for all the good work that she has done and the bipartisan cooperation that we have had on this bill. We don't agree on everything, but we agree on ag policy and trying to look out for the farmers together, and all of the various commodities and programs that are in this important bill. And this is certainly one of the greatest subcommittees in Congress.

Mr. Chairman, farmers today have lots of challenges, financing. Long- term financing for farmers, they can't get loans the way business people can get loans. They have problems with labor. The immigration issue is the hot issue of the day right now. Well, it has been a hot issue down on the farm for years as they have tried to get labor who will go out there in the hot sunshine and pick apples and pick peaches and pick onions, and trying to work with the H2A program that can be very difficult to comply with.

And while farmers are trying to work with H2A, along comes legal services funded by the Federal Government and suing farmers for technical violations often and not really substantive violations.

They have problems with environmental issues, in that we have very strict EPA laws, which their international competitors do not always have. And Ms. Kaptur, our friend from Ohio, often talks to us about Ohio tomatoes. And yet we know in Mexico they make tomatoes that can be competitive with those of Ohio tomatoes, but they do not have to follow the same labor or environmental laws.

Mr. Chairman, that is just one of the examples. And then we talk about unfair trade practices and what is subsidized and what is not. And so often the WTO, which is an organization most Americans do not even know about; yet the farmers, they are very mindful of what the WTO is up to, because so often the rulings seem to come down against American farmers.

Mr. Chairman, despite everything that farmers are up against, our food program and our food supply is the best any world has ever seen, any nation in the world at any time. Americans spend 11 cents on the dollar on groceries. We spend 43 cents on the dollar on recreation, from skiing to jet skiing, to boats, to fishing to buying CDs and going to movies and shows; we spend 43 cents on the dollar, but only 11 cents on the dollar for food. And for that, we have fruit all year long. We have meat in great abundance at low prices all year long. We have, as Mr. Obey knows well, milk. And there used to be milk shortages all over the country. And yet we do not have those kinds of shortages anymore. We do have a very complex, hard-to-explain agriculture system in America, and yet the product on the shelf in the grocery stores across America beats all in the world.

We need to all support this bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It is well thought out, well debated. There are going to be things I am going to comment on later on.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in less than 6 months, farmers will begin to plan for the next crop year. Without extending the storage and handling fee program for peanuts, all over the Southeast there will be problems in the ag world. As we know, when we did away with the peanut quota program, the farmers went from a support price of over $600 down to $355. Now, in exchange for such a reduction in the support price and elimination of the quota program, farmers

were also successful in negotiating a $50 per ton storage and handling fee.

The reason why this was important is because when peanuts are ready to harvest, the market might not be at the optimal selling price for the peanuts. Likewise, when the shellers and the folks in manufacturing and processing need peanuts, there might at times be an abundance and at other times there might be a deficit. So for everyone involved in the peanut food chain, having a good storage and handling program is important. You can't just put peanuts in any warehouse and keep them in fresh order. You have to have a specialized warehouse, and that is why this program is important.

This program is important not just to those in the peanut business directly, the farmer, the producer, the processor, the user, and the shelling facility; but it is also important for rural southeast America. The peanut program is bigger in poor counties across the southeastern States. You don't have a problem with the peanut program in Atlanta, Georgia, or in Birmingham, Alabama, or St. Simons Island, Georgia, or Savannah, Georgia. You have it in the small areas, like Cook County and Berien County and Candler County and Bulloch County, counties that do not have the growth in many cases of those in the urban areas.

This program has been successful from South Carolina to southern Mississippi to Alabama. Just one example: in Donalsonville, Georgia, the American Peanut Growers Group, a co-op comprised of 85 different peanut producers, invested in a shelling facility after the last farm bill and created 50 new full-time jobs and six new buying points throughout the region, a great success story.

In Tifton, Georgia, over $18 million has been invested in a new dome storage peanut shelling facility that employs 60 people. This is a product of 56 different peanut producers in making this shelling plant.

Examples of this are all over here. And I know the gentleman from Alabama is here and he has seen it from his own area, but even though the chairman of the Ag Committee has been a good supporter of farm programs and the peanut program, striking this language on a point of order actually hurts us at this time. Because as these peanut farmers are making growing decisions, we have just taken away one of the great economic tools they need to successfully decide if they are going to be planting peanuts or planting corn or planting soybeans or cotton.

What I would say to the members of the committee is as this bill moves through the process without this language in it, it is quite likely our friends in the other body will restore this language, and I am hoping that the Senators from Georgia are able to do that. The language was put in the bill by me, Mr. Bishop, and Congressman Boyd, bipartisan support and southeastern agriculture support, and we are hoping to get it restored at some point along the line.

So I just wanted to come down here on the point of order to make sure folks know that even though this is going to be stricken today, we do feel like it does not kill this, but for the time being.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I certainly appreciate the intent of what the gentlemen are trying to accomplish. I have a lot of sympathy for it, but I oppose the American Farm Bureau at this time. The reason is, we do need to identify those animals who are involved in the food chain for human consumption.

Yet, at the same time, because our language, we worked very closely with the authorizing committee, requires that before it is implemented that we have comments in the Federal Registry which at that time people can weed out those nonessential animals, because I don't want a national bureaucracy knowing about every single animal that I own or a rancher or farmer may own.

During that comment period, it certainly would be my intention, and I think most of us on the authorizing and on the appropriating committee, to make sure what you are saying is correct. So, at this point, I also want to point out that we are delaying any of these funds to be available to the USDA until it publishes the advance notice of proposed rulemaking about the plan. We are doing everything we can in a public comment period.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the authorizing committee, Mr. Goodlatte.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I will yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas if 10 seconds will help him.

Mr. Chairman, I want to urge a ``no'' vote and say that we are going to join Mr. Paul in fighting a new bureaucracy and also to weed out an excessive burden on small farmers and too much information to the Federal Government. That is why we have delayed the funding of this until the advanced notice for proposed rulemaking has been filed, and we are going to work on a bipartisan basis to get that right. So please vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to say on behalf of the Chair, we are ready to accept this amendment. I know you have worked very hard on this facility, and I know your passion for it. The committee accepts the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly applaud all of the efforts of Mr. Chabot for cutting spending and so forth. And yet I find myself on the opposite side with him on this. The reason is that Tom Friedman has written a very famous book right now called, The World is Flat. And the world is flat, and it is flat because we are in a global economy, where a farmer in the Philippines or in Indonesia or in Russia can compete with a farmer from Ohio or Georgia, just as easy as if he was in the same country.

What the MAP program does is it helps sell our goods overseas. Two or three hours ago when we opened up this bill, I said that one of our farmers' big challenges right now is foreign subsidies competing against American ag products. Well, quite often, the World Trade Organization seems to allow foreign farmers to have subsidies but not American farmers.

Mr. Chairman, this is one tool that helps us combat that. I would point out that the ag exports at this point are over $64 billion, the highest level in history. And one reason is this, is because the Market Access Program has shown our farmers, whether you are growing Vidalia onions or peanuts or strawberries, how to sell your goods overseas.

And for every $1 billion in sales overseas, there is about 16,000 domestic jobs that are created. In fiscal year 2005, almost 1 million Americans had jobs that depend on U.S. American agricultural exports. MAP is an integral part of that program. And yet it is not just for farmers alone, here, come get your check. They have to contribute up to 50 percent of the program's cost. And since 1992, the MAP participants have increased their contributions from 30 percent to 166 percent.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Chabot Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time we have?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I want to say this, and I appreciate what the gentleman from Arizona is doing, because I think that we all need to be accountable for anything that is in the bill or anything we vote on. One of my gripes with the other body is that they keep things in committee, and it is an incumbent protection system.

So I think having the opportunity to come down here and debate and fight for what we believe is important.

I want to point out, last year, our budget passed in the final version out of conference committee 212-214. That is a two-vote margin. So if you put more spending in the budget, it probably would not have passed. If you put less spending in the budget, it probably would not have passed also. It truly was a balance between those who wanted to spend more and those who wanted to spend less. And there are a lot who want to spend less.

However, politics is the reality of the possible or the passable. What you have sometimes is budgets that are hard to justify. I remember Mr. Obey telling a good story about something called the soldier fly. Down in the area I represent, there is a lot of agriculture. There are a lot of chicken growers, and chicken growers have chickens in hen houses. But, unfortunately, or fortunately, in a lot of rural areas, it has turned urban. And what do chickens have? Chickens have flies. They have blue flies. People build houses, and then the first thing they do is complain about the flies coming from the chicken houses. And the farmers were there first, but it does not matter.

Well, enter the soldier fly. The soldier fly comes in, Mr. Chairman, like a big hero and eats the blue flies; solves the problems for the farmer, solves the problem for the homeowners in rural areas. And this is a big economic issue, getting rid of the flies in chicken houses.

Well, we want to know, what can you do to foster more soldier flies? And so you study soldier flies. It is a nontoxic way to take care of pollution, but of course, it is great fodder for Reader's Digest to say they are studying the mating habits of soldier flies, which is not necessarily true.

But having the opportunity to come out here, and it was not an earmark, but to come out here and have an opportunity to debate things is good. I think it is a healthy exercise. But I want to say this as a committee member: When things are in the budget, and this budget, as you know, is down 8 percent from last year and that Member priorities are down $35 million, you

are under budget. And what somebody in California agriculture or somebody from Ohio agriculture supports may be different from what people in, say, Georgia support. But the overall goal is within the budget.

This year we have only passed a budget on the House side by a mere I believe 7 or 6 votes. So we are all walking that balance.

But I want to say I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, but I do like this process. I also want to say on behalf of the Appropriations Committee members, we do favor earmark reform. But we also believe when you have things like the Bridge to Nowhere that don't come from an appropriation bill, you have to open up the process to all of the other committees as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and support of the budget, and I support the budget for a number of reasons. But I do want to say, as I listen to the arguments from the other side, they are a little bit all over the place. And yet that is not unusual, because if you are in the minority party, you can pick and choose your relevancy. And generally the message that we are hearing from that side is it cuts too much here, it doesn't spend enough there, I don't like this, I don't like that. And yet they don't have a unified plan except to vote ``no'' on everything. We won't pick up a vote, you guys know that. The only thing they are unified by is a ``no.'' They cannot even within their own caucus support a budget that could get a majority. And we would like to work with them.

We just heard they don't like the Medicare prescription drug benefits, so they are, I guess, against the Medicare prescription drug benefit and want to return to the days when seniors were choosing between food on their table and medicine that they needed from their doctor.

We have heard they are supporting a Social Security tax increase. Well, I had a lot of Social Security town meetings; I didn't hear anybody who wanted to increase taxes on Social Security. I don't know if that is an official view or just one Member, but I do know that in terms of Social Security, there again it was a big ``no'' vote because they did not want to participate.

Now, what they also don't like is the economic prosperity that we are enjoying right now, because their whole view is if somebody is making money, then they are bad and they are evil, because they have this obsession with the wealthy in our society; unless they are a union, business agent, or a Barbra Streisand and some of the big wheels of Hollywood who fund their coffers, then it is okay to be rich and wealthy.

The interesting thing, though, is that under Republican Party policy, the economy has done so well. And think about this: that the domestic gross product grew by 8 percent the first quarter of 2006, and in the month of April alone 138,000 new jobs were created. We know, because it is an economic fact, that since our tax reductions went into play for farmers and small businesses, that 5 million new jobs were created. And there is a very important thing in there, business expensing, that allows the bicycle shops back home and the clothes store and the pet shops to expand and get a tax deduction for doing so. I know the Democrat Party doesn't like business, which would include small business. I think it is okay to have a healthy distrust of some of the big Wall Street guys. Some of those firms, after all, are Democratic. So we should kind of distrust some of those. They were big Clinton supporters, as I remember some of that crowd. But small businesses need this, because they can grow, and we need to give them some tax incentives.

In terms of tax receipts, as I sit in the Appropriations Committee, and bill after bill the Democrats want to spend more on and they want to take away this mythical tax cut for the rich, and the idea is because the rich are paying their taxes that the deficit is down. And yet the Treasury Department has reported that the receipts are up $137 billion, that is 11 percent, in the first 7 months of the year, of the fiscal year of 2006 which started October 1. So receipts are up 11 percent and yet taxes are down.

Now, why is that? Well, you could put it this way. If a business was doing three or four transactions a day and we were getting a tax on each transaction, now they are doing eight or nine, ten transactions a day, and we are still getting that tax. So we are taxing more because there is more activity and there are more transactions in the business world. And, again, because of that, the revenues are up $137 billion.

Now, last year they were up $274 billion, or an increase of 14.6 percent in fiscal year 2005. That is very significant for folks to remember. And, as Mr. Saxton said, President Kennedy, President Reagan, and now President Bush have shown the American people spend their money better than we do in Washington. And, again, I want to speak as an appropriator. I am in these meetings and I am convinced the American people can do better with their own money than we can. It stimulates the economy, it creates jobs, it is good for all of us. And then, in Washington, we do get more revenues.

Do I want to cut spending? Yes, I do. Do I think we need to reform entitlement? Yes, I do. I want to work on a bipartisan basis to do that, though, because I think that is the way the American people want to see us cooperate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I thank my friend from Massachusetts as well.

I have to say I just got in on the tail end of this, but I wanted to come down and say I think that allowing these budgets to be discussed tonight is a good thing. The Democrats will have two budgets that they are offering. The Republicans will have one, and we had the other one; so I guess it is two to two. I know we would have 435 individual budgets if everybody could have something that they fully believed in. But, unfortunately, in a large body of 435 people where you have to have 218 votes or at least a plurality to get something done, you have got to leave behind some budgets.

And I think this is going to give us a night of some good debates. We will be able to discuss priorities, both priorities in spending and priorities in cutting and reducing and changing the face of government.

I want to point out that last year, and Mr. Putnam may remember, but I believe we passed the budget finally, and Mr. Spratt might know, 214- 212, which somewhat shows the precarious position of a dynamic body, that if you moved spending up a little bit, you would not have been able to pass it. If you reduced it a little bit, you would not have been able to pass it.

So in this large institution we had a budget that just was balanced as we could get it, and I think we are probably going to be heading in that direction again. And I do not think that is a bad thing. I think all this debating is good, and that our arguments that we will have tonight in a friendly spirit will also carry on to each of the 11 appropriation bills, I guess these days, 10 subcommittees, but these things will be carried on, and we will see them again and again in committee and subcommittee form.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding and the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership on this issue.

I want to tell the story about Bennie and Katheryn, real people in Vidalia, Georgia. This is a couple who was paying $2,200 a month for their prescription drug bill. One of my staffers happened to be related to them and heard about it, and he went over there and sat down with them on all their drug needs and went over the website. He did not make a recommendation, but he showed them the information and they made their own choice. Now their total drug cost has gone from $2,200 a month to $104 a month, a 95 percent savings.

When they saw stuff like that, they did not believe it was possible, because they too had heard some of the rhetoric, some of the angry, some of the bitter rhetoric that comes out of Washington, D.C., and they thought, well, there is no way. But, in fact they are enjoying it now, and they need that extra income just like so many other millions of seniors do around the country.

Mr. Speaker, I heard former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson say that when Gladys starts talking to Mabel, this thing will really take hold. And, indeed, that is the truth. My office has had 48 workshops helping people decide which program works for them. Maybe it doesn't work for them, because I am always quick to say, it might not be the best thing for everybody. That is part of what a public offering is. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it works for most people. It is about a 50 percent to 60 percent savings for most people. Bennie got a 95 percent savings. Not everybody is going to get that.

But the interesting thing is that Gladys is talking to Mabel, because my friend Gil Gutknecht always quotes Ronald Reagan in saying that markets are more powerful than armies. In this case we have an army of people saying this is a horrible program that should be thrown away, thrown out; it is bad, it is wicked, it is the Republicans up to no good.

But look at the market. In my district, with my 48 workshops, our market penetration is about 70 percent right now. The interesting thing is one of my colleagues who is not in favor of this bill has about the same penetration, and he hasn't held one workshop.

That is one the ironies of it. I thought I am going to go out as a salesperson and really wave the flag and tell everybody how great it is. I am irrelevant. The market is more powerful than the army, the army for it or the army against it. The market is selling this thing, not the Republican Party, not the Democrat Party, wherever they may stand on it at the moment.

The reality is the seniors like it, and the reality is our seniors need it, because so many of them were having to choose between food on their table and prescription drugs.

My mom, who takes Tamoxifen from now on for the rest of her life, and my dad who has diabetes and their friends, they have some choices. Not everybody is going to sign up for it, but everybody is aware that the program is out there.

I will close with a quote from my good friend from Minnesota, who had voted against this bill. He said he has moved from being an atheist to an agnostic, but pretty soon he is going to be a holy roller and a believer like everybody else, because markets are stronger than armies.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commemorate the International Advocates for Children (IAC) on the services they provide to millions of underprivileged children.

Since its establishment in 2001, the International Advocates for Children, has become an important overseer for orphaned and abandoned children worldwide. IAC strives to guard the fundamental needs of this disadvantaged population by engaging in advocacy, education, problem analysis, and the development of solutions.

For the over 145 million orphaned and abandoned children, the most vulnerable in our world society, achieving these goals of providing love, healthcare, and shelter is even more critical. There is no time to lose because this population increases each day and time is of the essence to having their needs met.

IAC has created momentum by building a world community singularly focused on creating awareness, dialogue, research and knowledge- exchange on the needs of children without parental care. Through its continued efforts IAC will unite and facilitate countries, NGO's and thought leaders in a strong international coalition of child placement professionals.

Madam Speaker, in 1995 President Clinton, led by his environmental hard-core left-wing friends, vetoed drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. Now, had he signed that bill in 1995, which had passed the Senate and the House, we would have a 20 percent higher supply in domestic oil, 1 million barrels of gas each day more than what we have in our current supply. How big is the wildlife reserve? It is the size of South Carolina. How big is the exploration area? About 2,000 acres.

How many of the environmentalists and how many of the Democrats drove to town today in an SUV that makes 15 miles a gallon? We could use that supply. It is not the total answer, but it is part of the answer. And the Democrats always conveniently overlook that 10 years ago their President vetoed a bill that would have increased domestic gas supply today 20 percent.

There are other solutions that we are continuing to work on, and I hope that we can get them to join us on them.

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, the U.S. public spent $103 billion buying oil from nondemocratic countries such as Venezuela, Syria and Iran.

In fact, it is so bad that you could say that we are doubly funding the war on terrorism against us. We need to get off Middle East oil.

Congressman Eliot Engel and I have introduced H.R. 4409, which sets that goal of getting us off Middle East oil by the year 2025. We do it through existing technology. We accelerate the use of hybrids by doubling the tax credit for purchasing a hybrid.

We give automobile manufacturers a tax credit for making more lightweight vehicles that are more fuel efficient. We give truckers a tax credit for buying alternative power units so at night they do not have to burn diesel fuel while they are sitting in truck stops.

We adopt the Gil Gutknecht E-Line 10 by 10 language on ethanol.

This is a very good bill. I invite all of my colleagues to take a look at H.R. 4409 and consider being a cosponsor for national security.

Thank you, Mr. Price. I just wanted to say that I have the honor of representing the 3rd Infantry Division in Hinesville, Georgia, and in Savannah, Georgia, as well as the 1st Battalion 75th Ranger Regiment, and in all maybe as high as 20,000 troops from my district who have been in Iraq, the 48th Brigade, some coming and some going. But the thing that struck me as I went to Iraq in December is the amount of the turf, as you have mentioned, which has already been ceded to Iraqi security patrol.

When we were there, 50 percent of Baghdad was already under Iraqi control. And last week, I had the honor of meeting with General Webster, who was in charge of the 3rd Infantry Division over there, he just got back, and he told me that number now in Baghdad is about 60 percent. In Mozul, 25 to 30 percent of it is under Iraqi security patrol. And the government of Mozul, interestingly enough, is headed by a mayor who is a Sunni, and he has suffered personally. His family has been attacked because of it. Yet, at the same time, here is a guy who is still facing the wind and saying, let's get the job done, and not turning back.

One of the things I know you and I have heard from folks in Iraq and in Afghanistan is, we want to know is America here to stay until we are up and running. I know there are a lot of Democrats who would like to pull out tomorrow, and I understand that. I wish all our troops were home from everywhere. But the message that we got from the folks over there is, we really appreciate what you are doing; we need you to stay until the job is done.

And then as I have talked to the 3rd Infantry soldiers, it is the same thing: we have to finish this job. We just can't faint in the face of adversity. There are so many in America, the Michael Moores, the Cindy Sheehans, the fringe branch of the liberals that want us to cut and run. I think that would be such a huge disservice to all the troops who have died.

That is a message we hear from all over, particularly new Europe, emerging Europe, the Europe that had been 50 years under the Soviet bloc. They understand freedom, and they understand oppression. They do not take it for granted. They are not so anti- American as the Germans and the French seem to be. They do not enjoy the U.S. kicking that so many of our fair weather friends over there do.

But along with military progress in Iraq, there has been tremendous economic progress. As I was there looking down from the helicopter over the streets of Baghdad, I saw small businesses, traffic jams, people moving in and out of buildings buying things and so forth.

There is a port in Iraq that under Saddam Hussein never was used. Today, it has 40 ships a month going into it. In terms of newspapers and banking, it is coming back. In 2003, there were 13 Iraqi companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Today, I think that number is somewhere between 60 and 80. That is a lot of progress.

The GDP last year, I think, was something like $15 billion. Today it is $29 billion. A very small economy, but that is a huge step. The unemployment rate was something like 70 percent, and it is now 26 percent. Still very high unemployment rate by our standards, but for the Middle East, pretty doggone good. I can tell you that the Palestinian Authority wishes their unemployment rate were that low.

There is one Sunni province that went from something like a 2 percent voter turnout in January 2005 to December 15, 2005, having over a 60 percent voter turnout. Lots of people risking lives to go to the polls and very enthusiastic about it. When you think about the 300 political parties, when here we worry about Democrats versus Republicans, but 300 different political parties electing 275 members of a new parliament to serve now for 4-year terms, it is going to take awhile to have a coalition government put together. Usually those things take two or three months to happen.

But what I saw when I was over there is people wanting to put down the gun and pick up the pencil and pick up the paper and say let's move from the battlefield to the legislative chamber and debate this.

There are so many challenges to starting a new nation, but what they need right now is the world community behind them. They do not need world criticism behind them. I think sometimes our disagreements with the administration's foreign policy has led us

to be anti-Iraqi people, and I do not think the critics of the administration intend it to be that way, but that is the way it comes out overseas.

So I think we have to say, you know, Democrats and Republicans, and Republicans versus Republicans, can disagree on our foreign policy in Iraq and the war on terrorism; but we have to stand behind the Iraqi people. It is in everyone's interest for Iraq to succeed. And this is the point we are at. We cannot go back and say, well, this is what we should have done in 2003, this is what we should have done here and there. You have to take the situation as it is today and from this point on how are we going to move through the future.

Well, I appreciate being with you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I just want to say, if we look at what our budget has done in terms of Federal student aid, for student grants it has nearly doubled in 10 years. For Federal loans, it has gone up about 30 or 40 percent. There are more tax benefits than ever before for education.

For the Medicaid that we are getting accused of slashing to death, we are debating here a difference in growth of 7.7 percent versus 7.5 percent.

The spending growth in SSI has been increasing at an annual rate of about 4.4 percent, and it has gone from $29 billion to $36 billion in the last 5 years.

The spending growth in foster care in 2000 was $5.7 billion, and today it is $6.8 billion. The spending growth in child support has gone from about $1 billion in 2000 to $4 billion today.

We keep hearing about tax cuts for the rich. Why do people with more money get more tax reductions when you look to change tax policy? That is because they are paying the taxes.

What are the results of these economic decisions which we are making sometimes and too often on a nonpartisan basis because we do not get the support that we feel we should get from both parties on this? But what are the results of this?

Gross domestic product, we have had an increase of 4.3 percent in the third quarter. Real gross domestic product has increased about 3 percent for the last 10 consecutive quarters.

For employment, 215,000 new jobs were added in November alone, and this year so far 1.8 million jobs. The unemployment rate was 5 percent in November. The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.3 percent in June of 2003 to the current 5 percent level.

Productivity has increased at a robust 4.7 percent annualized in the third quarter. Manufacturing has been expanding for 30 consecutive months. Services have been expanding for 32 consecutive months.

Business investment from its low in 2003 has been increasing for over 24 percent, and home sales, certainly the barometer of health in the United States of America, everybody's dream to own their own home, and new home sales rose to another high in October. Sales of existing homes, which account for 85 percent of all home sales, retreated in October but remain close to record levels.

The economy is robust. These policies speak for themselves. If you do not confiscate money from folks in the form of taxes, participatory taxes, and if you do not overspend and expand the Federal Government, the economy in the United States of America works miracles because the rising tide lifts all boats. There are more jobs than ever before.

There is an old expression, when the carpenter has work everybody's employed. That is what these economic policies are doing, and I support this bill. There are things in there I do not like, just like everybody else, but overall, cutting spending and cutting taxes grows the economy and creates jobs. So I stand in support of the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank my friend from Florida for his kind words. He is right, I could not resist the open microphone opportunity, but also the subject matter. The subject matter is important.

Is this rule perfect, and is this bill perfect? Certainly not. I remember and had the honor of serving when we did welfare reform. All kinds of emotions were flowing back and forth, and it took us a number of different attempts and pieces of legislation to get to where we as a Nation thought we needed to go on welfare reform. As a result, there were 14 million people on welfare. That number was reduced down to 4 million people. Lots and lots of positive things happened with it, but we had to take that first step.

This is now the first step, or second step, if you will. It is overdue, in my opinion and the opinion of most Members on a bipartisan basis. We should have done something about immigration reform a long time ago.

Border security is integral to it. I do not live in a border State, where people pour over a river at night or walk across a desert, but I understand from our colleagues what a huge problem that is and how that is not just confined to immigrants from the country that is right next door to us, but other people who do not have anything to do with that country, who use it as a highway, a transit corridor, to come into America. So we need to do something about border security.

But certainly I believe we need to do something about employer sanctions. We always blame illegal immigration on that 20-year-old migrant who is here trying to send money home for his family. We do not ever talk about our own employer, who has also broken the law by hiring. We need to have tools so that employers can check the backgrounds of people before they hire them and then have penalties if they do not. I feel strongly about that.

Mr. Speaker, I represent an agricultural area. Certainly I see why we need to have a guest worker program. That is something I think we need to get to on a bipartisan basis, and we are going to have a great debate once we open that up.

But I strongly support this rule, and I am going to support the bill just to get the steps going. I do not think there is any turning back now that we have done this first very significant piece of legislation. We are in the immigration debate, and we will be doing immigration reform, I think, for very many months to come, and there is plenty of room for bipartisan ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time and really wanted to stand in support of the resolution and believe that the resolution is a good one and that yesterday in this week's election speaks volumes for all the work that we have accomplished.

I want to speak more importantly in memory and honor of Sergeant Daniel Clay, who was killed when the marines were attacked in Fallujah on December 1. His dad, Mr. Bud Clay, wrote the President a letter and said that ``I am writing to tell you how proud and thankful we, his parents and family, are of you and what you are trying to do to protect us all. This was Dan's second tour in Iraq and he knew and said that his being there was to protect us.

``I want to encourage you. I hear in your speeches about `staying the course.' I also know that many'' of you are against this war and you must get weary of fighting to try to do what is right. ``We and many others are praying for you to see this through, as Lincoln said `that these might not have died in vain.'''

I also have the actual letter that Daniel Clay wrote his family to be opened in the event of his death, and I think it would be in his honor to read it. This is of course by a very young man:

``Mom, Dad, Kristie, Jodie, Kimberly, Robert, Katy, Richard, and my Lisa.

``Boy do I love each and every one of you. This letter being read means that I have been deemed worthy of being with Christ. With Mama Jo, Mama Clay, Jennifer, all those we have been without for our time during the race. This is not a bad thing. It is what we hope for. The secret is out. He lives and His promises are real! It is not faith that supports this but fact and I now am part of the promise. Here is notice! Wake up! All that we hope for is real. Not a hope but real.

``But here is something tangible. What we have done in Iraq is worth my sacrifice. Why? Because it was our duty. That sounds simple. But all of us have a duty. Duty is defined as a God-given task. Without duty life is worthless. It holds no type of fulfillment. The simple fact that our bodies are built for work has to lead us to the conclusion that God, who made us, put us together to do His work. His work is different for each of us. Mom, yours was to be the glue of our family, to be a pillar for those women, all women around you. Dad, yours was to train us and build us, like a platoon sergeant, to better serve Him. Kristie, Kim, Katy, you are the fire team leaders who support your squad leaders, Jodie, Robert and Richard. Lisa, you too. You are my XO and you did a hell of a job. You all have your duties. Be thankful that God in His wisdom gives us work. Mine was to ensure that you did not have to experience what it takes to protect what we have as a family. This I am so thankful for. I know what honor is. It is not a word to be thrown around. It has been our honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to. This is as close to Christ-like I can be. That emulation is where all honor lies . . . I thank you for making it worthwhile.

``As a marine this is not the last chapter. I have the privilege of being one who has finished the race. I have been in the company of heroes. I now am counted among them. Never falter! Don't hesitate to honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting.

``Now here are my final wishes. Do not cry! To do so is to not realize what we have placed all our hope and faith in. We should not fear. We should not be sad. Be thankful. Be so thankful. All we hoped for is true. Celebrate! My race is over. My time in the war zone is over. My trials are done. A short time separates all of us from His reality. So laugh. Enjoy the moments and your duty. God is wonderful.

``I love each and every one of you.

``Spread the word. Christ lives and He is real.

``Semper Fidelis.

``Sergeant Daniel Clay.''

Daniel Clay is like so many others who have fought to make yesterday possible, and yesterday is certainly not a conclusion but let us hope a beginning of a new and significant chapter in Iraq where the military sacrifices become smaller and the political engagement becomes greater.

One thing I have learned and loved about this House is the fact that we are using politics as a substitute for civil war. Let us hope that Iraq learns that lesson and that 200 years from now they will look back at yesterday as one of their first most significant days in democracy.