Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Lake Highlands Republican Women. In December of 1980, the Lake Highlands Republican Women were formed, based on the guiding principle of the National Federation of Republican Women, ``to foster and encourage loyalty to the Republican Party and the ideals for which it stands.''

For the past 30 years, the Lake Highlands Republican Women have worked hard to promote the principles of the Grand Old Party and to elect Republican leaders from the Courthouse to the White House.

The Lake Highlands Republican Women are truly helping make our community and our country a better place to live. The Lake Highlands Republican Women continue to strengthen the Republican Party through candidate recruitment, training and election activities as well as advocating the GOP common sense conservative philosophy of faith, family, free enterprise, and freedom.

Today, I would like to honor the Lake Highlands Republican Women and their leaders, including: Patti Clapp (1981-1982), Jan Patterson (1983- 1984, 1993), Lee Dewbre (1985-1986), Fredda Horton (1987-1988), Libby Swaim (1989-1990), Linda Russell (1991-1992), Annabelle Ward (1994- 1995), Jill Mellinger (1996-2001), Suzy Pollok (1997), Deborah Brown (1998-1999), Kathi Drew (2000), Elaine Travis, (2002), Glee Huebner (2003-2004), and Gloria Gibeau (2005). These strong Republican women embody the energy, vision and values of our party.

Mr. Speaker, last night while participating in a special order hour, I misspoke and substituted the name of my wonderful wife Melissa for that of my young daughter Claire. I would like to reiterate how proud I am of our brave men and women in uniform and of their contributions to keeping American families safe.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I especially thank him for his leadership in this body. As the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus in Congress, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my colleague, his leadership is second to none in this institution.

I am happy to call him my leader in the Republican Study Committee and to call him my friend. I was very grateful, Mr. Speaker, that he would invite me to join him on this trip over to Iraq.

It was very important for me, Mr. Speaker, that I travel over to Iraq. I thought it was important for a couple of reasons.

Number one, I thought it was very important to say ``thank you'' in person to the brave men and women who don our Nation's uniform and put themselves in harm's way so that we can live in a safer and more secure America. It was very important, I think, that these people hear in person, face to face, where they are sitting and fighting the battle for freedom and security, that they hear from us in person the Nation's gratitude for what they do.

I know it has been said before, but I do not know where our Nation finds such brave men and women to go and do this. It is so heartwarming that we in America have an all-volunteer military that produces such great men and women. So I wanted to thank these people in person.

Second of all, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the United States Congress who has supported these troops in the field, we all know here in this institution that we are privy to a lot of briefings by three- and four- star generals. It is not that often, however, that we can get briefings from three- and four-stripe sergeants, those who are truly on the front lines of this effort; and I thought it was very important that I speak to these men and women as well.

I want to echo what my colleague had to say, and that is that we are winning this effort. That is not to deny the reality of what we see on the news every night and, as my colleague said, not to trivialize it, because the cost of this war is incredible. It is a terribly costly war in terms of blood and in terms of money. There is no denying that reality.

But in our living rooms back home, Mr. Speaker, and I come from Dallas, Texas, there is another reality that somehow never makes the 6 o'clock news, nor does it ever make the front page of my daily newspaper.

For example, no television station has ever shown up at my home in East Dallas at 8:30 p.m. to film either my wife or myself tucking our two children into bed in a safer, more secure America. No film crew has ever come to film that.

In my home of Dallas, no film crew has ever gone to the Northpark Shopping Mall and reported, ``Today there was no suicide bomber at Northpark Mall.'' You will never read that story back home in Dallas, Texas.

You will never read a newspaper headline saying, ``Today no one rammed a car filled with explosives through Mesquite Poteet High School.'' You will never read that story.

Yet I believe that because of what we are doing in fighting this war against terrorism, because of Operation Iraqi Freedom, we do live in a safer and more secure America.

Now it is no accident there has not been another attack since 9/11. That is not to say one could not happen tomorrow, but we will never win this war playing defense. We will only win this war playing offense. For the sake of our Nation, for the same of this generation and the next, we must win this war on terror. And there is no substitute for actually going to a place, Mr. Speaker, and talking to people and observing for yourself.

There are a lot of different statistics I could quote in how we are winning the war on terror, but let me share a few stories, a few observations I have which really spoke volumes to me.

First of all, traveling around Baghdad in an Army helicopter, all over Baghdad we saw the rooftops riddled with satellite dishes, something that was illegal in the regime of Saddam Hussein. The seeds of freedom of speech that have been planted in that country are fundamental to growing this democracy, this nascent democracy in this very vital part of the world. Satellite dishes all over Baghdad with now multiple sources of information and news that has not been seen in Baghdad in decades and decades and decades.

Now one of the programs they apparently receive on this satellite dish, and I did not see it myself but I had a soldier describe it to me, is a program entitled ``Angry Mothers.'' I guess in America the show would be part of our reality TV series. But when we watch American television, we only get the indication that all of the Iraqi people are either insurgents and terrorists or they cower in their homes. But that is not the reality that we saw. In this program entitled ``Angry Mothers,'' apparently when some of the insurgents are captured, they allow the mothers of those who have been wounded or killed by the insurgents to confront them. And although I do not know nor do I care to know how to curse in Arabic, I assume a fair amount of the show has to be censored.

We never see those pictures of the Iraqi people themselves confronting the insurgents and confronting them about their evil deeds and their evil purposes, but, Mr. Speaker, it takes place. It takes place every day, and it is taking place throughout the Iraqi television network.

Something else. In going to these various military bases that my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), described, whether it be Camp Caldwell or Camp Liberty, it was described to us that about 6 months

ago there might be two or three mortar attacks every day, and today it may be two or three a week. Mr. Speaker, it is still war, but it is progress. It is progress.

We heard a tragic story, and we have seen it in the news before, how at one of the many recruitment stations, where the Iraqi people will volunteer to help rebuild their country and be a part of their military service or to be a part of their police force, how at one of these recruitment stations the insurgents successfully bombed and killed many of the recruits. Well, Mr. Speaker, 24 hours later they had that recruitment station back open, and the exact same number of recruits showed up again. They knew what had happened. They wanted to be a part of building the new Iraq. Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe that is progress. That is helping win this war.

Human intelligence is a very vital aspect of fighting this war. Now, increasingly, more of the Iraqi people are helping locate the bad guys. We heard a story about an insurgent who was armed and who broke into a house. When Iraqi and American troops, working together, managed to go to this home and knock on the door, this insurgent informed the troops that he was the cousin from Baghdad of the lady of the house. Notwithstanding the fact she knew this insurgent had a gun, she said, ``No, sir, he is a terrorist. Take him away.'' That might not have happened 6 months ago in this country, but it is happening today, Mr. Speaker. And that is more and more progress in this war against terrorists.

Mr. Speaker, again let me just go back and talk a little about all the troops we met and reinforce a point that was made by my colleague from Indiana. Again, I am just so proud that I had an opportunity to meet with these brave men and women.

I remember hopping on a C-130 with a corporal out of Las Vegas, Nevada. He had just come back from 2 weeks of R&R, rest and relaxation, back home, and he has a family. He is married, and he has children. I said, ``Corporal, I guess you wish you were still back home.'' And he said, ``No, sir. Today my unit needs me more than my family.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the incredible level of commitment that we see.

I remember meeting a young captain from Indiana, the home State of my colleague who led this delegation. We asked him about what does it mean to him and his family to be there. He said, very sincerely, ``I hate being here. I hate being here, but I love my job, and I know how important it is to my country and my family that I succeed.'' Mr. Speaker, that is an incredible, incredible level of dedication that we have.

So some days, Mr. Speaker, it may be three steps forward and two step backwards. I am not here to say that this is easy work. I am not here to say that it is going to happen tomorrow. We cannot pick up democracy through a drive-in window. There is no such thing as McDemocracy. It takes a long time to develop it. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not democracies that threaten us, it is these authoritarian, despotic regimes that harbor terrorists, that train terrorists, that finance terrorists, and that seek weapons of mass destruction.

I agree with our President, though some do not, but I agree with him that there are some threats that you must meet before they fully develop.

Who, looking back at the pages of history, if they had an opportunity to stop Nazism and Adolf Hitler in 1930 would not have done it? Who would not have done it? If you had an opportunity to stop what the Soviet Union did in taking over Eastern Europe and holding it captive for 50 years, who would not have stopped that?

Well, I think we have an opportunity to stop this terrorist movement that is taking place and emanating from the Mideast. But we as an American people have to realize that this is not a sprint, Mr. Speaker, this is a marathon. It is a marathon.

The cost of cutting and running is too high, because the elements that would come back and take over in Iraq are the same people who were part of the Hussein regime. They are the same people who put together the despotic regime in Afghanistan. These are the people that would threaten the lives of our fellow countrymen, and that cannot be tolerated.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to be a part of this delegation led by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). I learned so much. I am so proud of our soldiers, and I wish everybody could see the day-to-day progress, this kind of sloppy, halting, but inexorable progress towards democracy that is taking place in Iraq today. Like I said before, some days it is three steps forward and two steps backward, but it is progress. We see it, we know it is happening each and every day, and because of it, I believe ultimately our country will be more safe and more secure.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield back to my friend from Indiana.

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

I just wanted to say that I have been privileged to have a number of profound moments in my life; but I have to tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, one of the most profound moments I had was traveling to Baghdad, traveling to these military installations, meeting with our brave men and women, and reaching into my wallet, Mr. Speaker, and pulling out this very small photo of my two children, and looking these privates and corporals and sergeants in the eye and saying, Thank you. Thank you for what you do to keep my little 3\1/2\-year-old Melissa and my almost-2-year-old Travis alive in a safer, more secure America. And having them pull out photos of their children and having them tell me how they know how important it is that they fight for their families many, many thousands of miles away.

That was a profound moment in my life because, Mr. Speaker, I still do not know if the American people realize what the threat is. There are terrorists who have sworn publicly. This is not hyperbole. This is not exaggeration. They have said on the record they want to kill our children. It is that serious. They want to get their hands on weapons to attack and annihilate Western Civilization as we know it. This is their aim.

Mr. Speaker, the insurgents have proven very adept at taking innocent human life. They are very good at it. But what they have not proven adept at is halting this occasionally slow, awkward, clumsy, but inexorable, march towards democracy in Iraq. They have not stopped it, Mr. Speaker. People show up. They brave bombs and bullets to cast their ballots. And as we help this democracy flourish in Iraq, not only are we helping this people in this great and wonderful civilization. More importantly, we are making America safer and more secure. And that is what it is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commemorate two significant anniversaries of Rotary International. This year, Rotary International celebrated its 100th anniversary. From its humble roots in Chicago, Illinois, Rotary has grown into a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders who provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. Since 1943, Rotary International has distributed more than $1.1 billion to combat Polio, promote cultural exchanges and encourage community service.

I also want to recognize the Malakoff Rotary Club for their 66 years of service to Henderson County. Throughout its history, the Malakoff Rotary Club has achieved great success in carrying out the mission of Rotary International.

In past years, the Malakoff Rotary Club has raised money to provide scholarships for local students and sponsored programs to improve area literacy. In addition, they have sponsored numerous activities with Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs, Eustace Children's Home and the Henderson County Crisis Center.

Through these initiatives, the Malakoff Rotary Club exemplifies the values of service and charity that lie at the heart of American society. As the Congressional representative of the members of this outstanding organization, it is my distinct pleasure to honor them today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Mesquite Republican Women. On July 14, 1975, at the home of Mrs. Poppy Airhart, the Mesquite Republican Women were formed, based on the guiding principle of the National Federation of Republican Women, ``to foster and encourage loyalty to the Republican Party and the ideals for which it stands.''

For the past 30 years the Mesquite Republican Women has worked hard to promote the principles of the Grand Old Party and to elect Republican leaders from the Courthouse to the White House.

The Mesquite Republican Women are truly helping make our community and our country a better place to live. The Mesquite Republican Women continue to strengthen the Republican Party through candidate recruitment, training and election activities as well as advocating the GOP common sense conservative philosophy of faith, family, free enterprise, and freedom.

Today, I would like to honor the first officers of the Mesquite Republican Women. President Mrs. Kay Ballard, 1st Vice President Mrs. Poppy Airhart, 2nd Vice President Mrs. Janice Houston, 3rd Vice President Mrs. Elaine Bernhagen, Secretary Mrs. Jonette Thornhill, and Treasurer Mrs. Ginger Kraft. These strong Republican women embody the energy, visions and values of our party.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Mr. Allen Clark for his distinguished military, business and public service careers, and thank him for his outstanding contributions to his community and his country.

This September will mark the end of Mr. Clark's service at the Veterans Administration North Texas Health Care System, bringing a close to his long and distinguished career as a spokesperson and representative for veterans in our community. Always keeping his fellow veterans at the heart of each of his decisions, Allen Clark has been a strong and vocal advocate for the VA and veterans issues.

A graduate of the United States Military at West Point and decorated combat veteran, Allen Clark bravely served his country in the ranks of the U.S. Army, volunteering for service in Vietnam. As a Military Intelligence Officer assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group in South Vietnam, Allen Clark was seriously wounded. His injury required the amputation of both his legs below the knee. This life-altering experience may have taken his legs, but it did not take his spirit. For his distinguished service Clark received the Purple Heart, the Silver Star for gallantry in action, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, Army Airborne Wings, and the Vietnam Campaign Ribbon with two battle stars.

After returning from Vietnam, Allen Clark built a successful business career, earning a Masters of Business Administration degree and later working in finance, investments, oil and gas exploration, real estate, marketing, and mortgage lending in Texas. He was president of three oil companies in Midland, Texas, as well as a co-founder of a real estate investment company in Austin, Texas. His career as a public servant is equally impressive. Allen Clark served as Special Assistant for Administration to Texas Governor William Clements and Assistant Secretary for Veterans Liaison in the Administration of President George H.W. Bush. In 1991, he was confirmed as the Director of the National Cemetery System. In 2001, he was appointed Public Affairs Officer at the Veterans Administration North Texas Health Care System after serving there as Administrative Officer for Spinal Cord Injury Service and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Service.

President Calvin Coolidge once said, ``The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten.'' As a combat veteran and as a public servant, Allen Clark understands that better than most Americans. Throughout his life he has done his very best to ensure that our nation never forgets the sacrifices that our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen made to defend our freedom.

Allen Clark is a dedicated public servant, a hero, and a true patriot. But I am most proud to call him my friend. His peers, his fellow veterans, and those like me who have had the privilege to know and work with Allen Clark, will greatly miss him. As the U.S. Representative for the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, today I would like to honor the service, sacrifice and bravery of Allen Clark, and thank him for the outstanding work he has done on behalf of our nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss funding for veterans' healthcare. As the son, grandson, and brother of veterans, I understand just how important this funding is to our brave men and women who have answered the call of duty to serve their country. Since coming to Congress, it has been one of my greatest pleasures to be able to provide our veterans with the care and the treatment they deserve.

Since 1995, Congress has increased spending on veterans by more than 59 percent--an average increase of 6.9 percent per year. During this Congress alone we have increased the death benefits and life insurance coverage of our Armed Services personnel. We have also provided funding for specialty mental health care for the first time ever, increased funding for the treatment of conditions like Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and doubled funding for mental health care issues. This is indeed a record to which we can all be proud.

I was also proud to cosponsor H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act, in the 108th Congress. With the agreement of the House and Senate, another version of this bill was passed and signed by President Bush in order to allow certain military retirees to receive both their longevity retired pay and veterans disability compensation. As Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert noted, ``Congressman Hensarling's strong support for our nation's veterans and concurrent receipt legislation was critical to ensuring that we achieved the most significant, positive step forward for veterans in our nation's history.''

Unfortunately, sometimes Congress can fall short. For instance, the Fiscal Year 2004 Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill, fell $1.8 billion short of what was agreed to in that year's budget resolution. This inadequate level for funding for veterans healthcare greatly concerned me, and that is why I voted against the bill. When thousands of veterans were waiting 6 months or longer for healthcare, I did not believe that it was the time to skimp on needed resources.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Included as part of this legislation was $1.5 billion in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover an anticipated budgetary shortfall for the current fiscal year. I am very pleased that the House of Representatives has approved the funding necessary to ensure that they receive the medical care they deserve. However, because the underlying legislation to which we attached this important provision violated the budget we agree to abide by earlier this year, I found myself in the difficult position of having to vote against this legislation.

There were a number of alternative methods that could have been used to alleviate this problem--methods that would not have violated the budget. Most notably, we could have amended H.R. 3130, which was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 30, 2005, to provide the necessary funding levels. This broadly supported measure would have demonstrated our firm commitment to our veterans, and it is unfortunate this alternative was not utilized.

Mr. Speaker, in the end the greatest threat to adequately funding the needs of our veterans is Congress' seemingly inherent inability to control runaway wasteful spending in our budget. Each and every time we spend another dollar on wasteful measures like bulletproof vests for K- 9s, bridges to nowhere, or an underground cafeteria in the Carlsbad Caverns, is a dollar that is not available for our veterans.

One of Congress's most solemn obligations is to care for our veterans. I remain committed to funding 100 percent of the benefits veterans have earned through their service and sacrifice to our country. I will continue to work with Members of Congress to explore ways to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs gets the money they need within the rules of our budget agreement. I will not however, support legislation to grow the budget of another department, such as this bill would have done with the Department of the Interior, at the expense of our veteran's and our children's future.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives approved the conference report for H.R. 3, the six-year reauthorization of highway and transit programs. I regrettably voted against this legislation because I believe it represents a disservice to American taxpayers. With an advertised cost of over $286 billion, the bill on its face is more than $2 billion over what President Bush has threatened to veto. More importantly though, the bill contains a gimmick that disguises significant spending and undermines the integrity of the entire Congressional budget process. Several times already this year I have opposed legislation that violates either the Budget Act or spending limits established by the Congress. We agreed to these budget levels and the discipline of the Budget Act. We must learn to live by them or we will leave our children and grandchildren a huge and unfair financial burden as their inheritance.

Unless Congress breaks with decades of historical precedent and rescinds $8.5 billion in funding in 2009 (on the last day of the bill's authorization), the budget gimmick brings the true total to $295 billion. There are many worthwhile projects in this bill that are good for Texas and for the nation. We should be spending Federal highway funds on needed highways and bridges, gravel and concrete, not millions of dollars on the Henry Ford Museum in Michigan, graffiti elimination in New York City or hundreds of millions for a bridge in Alaska so the few residents of a remote island can avoid a 7 minute ferry ride.

The budget ruse and the wasteful items in this legislation are a disservice to the American people, who count on Congress to ensure we have the necessary infrastructure to sustain continued growth in our economy. We need roads to move commuters quickly, safely and efficiently and so businesses can ship goods. We do not need H.R. 3 as written. I know my position is often lonely in attempting to protect the integrity of our Budget Act and the discipline it represents. Still I believe the work is critical and I will continue to try to be a leader in this area in the House.

Mr. HONDA, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program provisions contained in H.R. 3 the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity: A Legacy for Users Act.

While we have made some progress in getting participation by minority-owned businesses in the Federal-Aid highway and transit programs, we still need the DBE program to encourage further advances in this area.

We have seen that when DBE programs end, many prime contractors return to the same exclusionary practices that deny minorities and women the chance to compete for business underscoring the continued need for the DBE program. Let me also make clear that the DBE program is not a quota program. The goals in the program represent a national target for the Department of Transportation; state and local recipients of DOT funding set their own goals for DOT participation in construction projects based on the availability of disadvantaged businesses in their markets. There is never an absolute requirement that a particular goal be met.

The DBE program is based on a simple premise of equal opportunity. It requires all contractors bidding for Federal highway projects to do so on an equal footing, regardless of gender or of race. Federal highway projects should be awarded to companies owned by individuals who for decades, for decades were effectively shut out from this industry. I believe that the DBE program in this bill is needed to open opportunities for women and minorities in the highway construction industry. It is a program important to a wide range of socially and economically disadvantaged persons.

Mr. Speaker, time has shown that the DBE program works. It is a program that meets constitutional muster. It is a program that has a rational, national compelling interest. Again, I stand here today to express my strong support for a program that has proven to be of enormous benefit to countless minority- and women-owned businesses in the country.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, today is a truly momentous day in the history of our space program. The liftoff of the Space Shuttle Discovery is significant achievement for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). It is also a solemn tribute to the astronauts lost in last shuttle mission and the East Texans who helped in the wake of that tragedy.

Two years ago, on a quiet Saturday morning, millions of Americans witnessed the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and its seven heroic crewmembers in the skies over East Texas. While we will never be able to bring back the crew of Space Shuttle Columbia, I am pleased to see our space program reaching for the stars once more by launching the first shuttle since that terrible disaster.

The crew of the Discovery, and their support team at NASA, have been working hard to get our shuttle program back on track. To increase the safety of the crew, the scientists at NASA have made multiple improvements on the shuttle. The Columbia accident investigation board made 15 recommendations that have been implemented for this flight, as well as 29 other improvements to launch, orbit, and reentry procedures. Commander Eileen Collins

and her crew, James Kelly, Andrew Thomas, Wendy Lawrence, Charles Camarda, Stephen Robinson, and Soichi Noguchi are piloting the safest, most sophisticated, and most reliable spacecraft ever built.

This successful lift off, NASA's 114th shuttle mission, is a tremendous event. It is important that we remember the dangerous nature of space flight and exploration. As President Ronald Reagan said after the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger, ``We've grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we've only just begun.''

This week, we congratulate the scientists and technicians who are upholding the greatest traditions of America's space program. We recognize the spirit and courage of the space shuttle's crew. We thank the countless number of East Texans that helped in the search for evidence and answers in the wake of the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy. And finally, we honor the memory of those brave men and women who have gone before in the name of exploration and in the quest for discovery.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of the rule for CAFTA. For over 200 years America has been benefited from trade. It means American families can buy more, using less of their paycheck. Trade means more competition. Competition is the consumer's best friend, and it does not matter whether that competition comes from Houston or Honduras or El Paso or El Salvador.

Now, CAFTA is a very simple trade agreement regardless of what you hear tonight. It allows our consumers to buy a few more items from Central America, and it allows our producers to sell a whole lot more to those same countries. It creates jobs. It will help ease our trade deficit. It is more than fair trade for us.

Now, you hear some people opposing CAFTA, claiming that somehow this is actually going to hurt jobs. Yet 80 percent of Central America are already entering our country duty free. What will help us is our ability to export to those countries duty free.

Now, some are talking about labor and environmental standards; but, Mr. Speaker, by helping further impoverish Latin America, we are somehow going to help improve their labor standards? We are somehow going to help improve their environmental standards? I think not.

There is no rational economic reason, Mr. Speaker, to oppose CAFTA. Increasingly this debate against CAFTA is boiling down to raw protectionism and bitter partisanship. It is amazing how many people love competition and the products they buy, but they seem to hate competition in the products they sell. That just cheats American consumers.

And then there are those who just reflexively oppose anything that President Bush favors, anything, regardless of its merits. Mr. Speaker, we ought to all read the headlines. Everybody knows about the threats and arm-twisting taking place on the Democrat side of the aisle. It is time to put aside protectionism, put aside the bitter partisanship. It is time to vote for personal economic freedom. Vote for more American exports, and vote for the rule for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this week Congress will consider the Central American Free Trade Agreement, the largest free trade agreement in over a decade. I am very proud to support this agreement that will create opportunities for the unemployed, increase wages and improve the standard of living for American workers.

According to a study of only 12 States by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, CAFTA would create over 25,000 new jobs in these States in the first year alone. According to the American Farm Bureau, CAFTA will provide a substantial competitive advantage to U.S. farmers and ranchers, boosting agricultural exports by $1.5 billion annually.

Mr. Speaker, this historic agreement will also help consumers by delivering a greater choice of goods at lower prices. Through more trade, American families will be able to buy more, using less of their paychecks. We have over 200 years of history to prove it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to reject protectionism and instead support jobs, support U.S. farmers, support consumers, and support freedom by supporting CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005, offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, if we do not act soon, America will face a health care crisis. Health care costs are skyrocketing. We all know it; and, unfortunately, so do the ranks of America's uninsured. As usual, government is part of the problem. More freedom and more competition is part of the solution.

With nearly half of the 45 million uninsured Americans employed by small businesses, or dependent upon someone who is, H.R. 525 will help more Americans get access to the affordable health insurance they need.

H.R. 525 would allow the creation of association health plans to help alleviate the enormous health care burden on America's small businesses. They will empower small businesses to join together to bargain with insurance carriers to get health care coverage for their workers at an affordable cost. No affordable cost, no insurance. Under current law, large employers that self-insure are exempt from State mandates while small businesses are not. This increases the cost of health insurance up to 13 percent and bars up to one-quarter of the uninsured from acquiring health care.

Mr. Speaker, that is not right. Small businesses and their employees should have the same right to quality health care insurance that large corporations and unions already enjoy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that association health plans could actually reduce premiums for small businesses up to 25 percent. That could mean an average savings of $1,000 to $2,000 for the average family health plan offered by a small business. That means more people covered, more lives saved.

I urge all my colleagues to support the rule for H.R. 525 and the underlying legislation. With association health plans, we can dramatically reduce the number of uninsured Americans while increasing health care access, affordability, and choice.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of his amendment.

As I understand it, if there are nine members of this board, no more than five can be from the party of the President. Inasmuch as the President is presently a Republican, that would mean that at least four seats would be allocated to those who are members of the Democrat party. The last time I looked, although perhaps some labor unions are having a falling out amongst themselves, there has not been a falling out between the labor union movement and the Democrat Party, so I would think they would be well represented.

I think perhaps somebody that might be terribly underrepresented tonight would be the poor beleaguered taxpayer. Given that there are over 140 million of them, perhaps we should consider reserving at least one seat for them, to make sure that their interests are represented since, too often, so many of the aspects of this legislation that we are discussing tonight ultimately could fall upon them. If there is anybody who deserves special recognition, and not that all stakeholders should not be considered, I would suggest that we reserve a seat for the taxpayer.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I do want to add my voice to those congratulating the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) for his good work, and I know that the job has been very tough to try to reconcile all of the differing interests and opinions that are brought to bear. But I find it very difficult to believe that we have something to fear from a pilot program in 20 communities out of 38,000. It appears that something is not working, or we would not be here this evening.

Many, many years ago when I was in high school, I played both football and tennis, and I was equally poor at both, but I remember something a tennis coach once told me: There are many ways to lose at tennis. Try them all.

Well, we are losing here tonight if we are contemplating rate increases and imposing $6 billion on the taxpayers. Maybe we should try something new. Maybe we should try some pilot programs. Maybe we should get some more experimentation, some more innovation, some more competition into the system, and maybe we can find ways to start winning at this.

And because of that, I do rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening some Members rose in support of postal workers. Other rose in support of large postal customers. This is good, and this is well, and I respect that.

But tonight I wish to rise in support of the taxpayer. Today our Nation is riding a wave, an impending fiscal tsunami, that threatens to drown our children and grandchildren in a sea of red ink.

Since 2000, the amount that government spends annually per household has risen from $18,000 to over $20,000 in 2004. This is only the fourth time in our Nation's history that spending exceeded $20,000 per household. It also represents the largest expansion of the Federal Government since the Vietnam era.

The Federal debt now stands at a staggering $7.8 trillion, or roughly $26,600 for every man, woman and child in America. And the Nation's financial challenges are about to get markedly worse over the next decade.

Without reforms we know that Medicare will grow at a rate of 9 percent, Medicaid 7.8 percent and Social Security at 5.5 percent a year, far outstripping our country's economic growth or our ability to pay for them. Where will it all end?

According to the GAO, if we ignore the runaway growth of government spending, we will have to double taxes, double taxes on our children and grandchildren just to balance the budget by the year 2040. If this occurs, we stand to become the first generation of Americans to leave our children with a lower standard of living, not to mention a legacy of limited freedom and unlimited government.

Now, day after day Member after Member comes to this floor to decry the Federal deficit and the legacy of debt that we are leaving our children. Rarely have so many of us spoken so passionately against the Federal deficit and yet done so little about it.

Today, I wish to provide us with an opportunity to change that. In 1970, the fundamental principle of postal reform was established, that the Postal Service would become a self-financed entity. According to title 39 of the U.S. Code: ``Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail.''

Simply put, the U.S. Postal Service is supposed to pay its own freight; but according to the Congressional Budget Office, and I understand that the chairman of the full committee respectfully disagrees with their score, the CBO says H.R. 22 will actually place us further in debt by almost $6 billion over 10 years. And who should pay for that $6 billion?

It either must be paid by those who use the Postal Service or the taxpayers. I vote for those who actually use the service. Now, some of my colleagues have argued that the Postal Service faces unique responsibilities and thus taxpayers must subsidize them. It is true. The Postal Service does have some unique responsibilities, but they also enjoy a host of unique benefits that private businesses do not. The Postal Service pays no Federal, States, or local taxes. They are immune from most regulations such as zoning, motor vehicle registration, and even parking tickets.

The Postal Service can borrow from the Treasury at below-market rates and is immune from anti-trust laws despite the fact that it can compete against private companies.

The number one problem facing the United States Postal Service is not the lack of a taxpayer subsidy. It is their seeming inability to control costs. Labor costs consume 80 percent of the

Postal Service's revenue, whereas UPS and Fed Ex spend only 56 percent and 42 percent of their revenues on labor.

The Postal Service has been unable to close existing facilities or consolidate new operations. In fact, Mr. Chairman, over half of its 38,000 facilities do not generate enough revenue to cover their costs.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to state that I respect the hard work that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) have done on this bill. And I do understand that many different opinions had to be reconciled to get a postal reform bill to the floor. But I believe that we need to stand with President Bush, we need to stand with the American taxpayer and make this a budget-neutral bill. Instead, if we want to make the Postal Service more cost competitive, what we really need to do is enact all of the Presidential commission's workforce reforms.

In 2003, Congress decided that the Postal Service was on a course to possibly overpay its civil service retirement system costs. Rather than let the Postal Service spend the money, it retained it and an escrow account was created within the U.S. Treasury.

H.R. 22 releases that escrow account to pre-fund Postal Service health care liabilities. I agree this is a sound use of funds, but it is unfortunately incomplete. Under H.R. 22, only two-thirds of the funds would be used to fund the health care liabilities letting 2 to $3 billion a year slip back to the Postal Service for other expenditures.

With the Postal Service currently facing an unfunded health care liability of roughly $75 billion, I believe every dollar in the escrow account should be used to offset this growing concern. If not, taxpayers will surely be called upon to make up this tremendous shortfall.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the cost of H.R. 22 substantially by ensuring that 100 percent of the civil service retirement system savings will be directed to the Postal Service's unfunded health care liability. In addition, this amendment would maintain the Postal Service's financial responsibility for paying the civil service retirement system costs associated with military service credits, instead of passing the cost on to the Treasury and the American taxpayer.

Again, the question is not whether but who will pay, the customers that use the Postal Service or the American taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I want the Postal Service to become more efficient, and I believe we can do so by enacting more of the President's initiatives. Let us not pass the buck to American taxpayers yet again. Let us not pile further debt upon our grandchildren. Let us ensure the United States Postal Service continues to pay its own freight. I do appreciate the good work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), but let us make H.R. 22 budget neutral. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

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

Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago the Postal Service was here asking for $7 billion from the taxpayer. They come here tonight asking for $6 billion from the taxpayers. Again, I ask the question: Where will it all end?

If we do not change the way we do business in Washington, we will have to double taxes on future generations just to balance the budget. Somehow, somewhere, some way, someday we must stop the madness of the spending.

I agree with many of my colleagues that there are only two choices: Either ratepayers or taxpayers are going to pick up this tab. I vote for ratepayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA. This trade agreement will help boost American exports, create more American jobs, help fuel economic growth, and, perhaps more importantly, help preserve

the economic liberties of the common American citizen.

Now, those favoring protectionism tonight have cited several fallacious arguments for rejecting CAFTA and other free trade efforts. Some argue CAFTA will hurt business and jobs. The opposite is true. Even more than previous free trade agreements, U.S. producers have so much to gain under CAFTA. You see, our U.S. markets are already open to Central America. Eighty percent of imports from the six CAFTA countries already enter duty free. Since our markets are already open to goods from these countries, CAFTA will level the playing field like never before for American exports.

CAFTA could expand U.S. farm exports by $1.5 billion a year as prices of U.S. wheat and other crops are free from tariffs. Manufacturing and information technology could see exports increase by $1 billion annually when duties are removed. And the list goes on and on. A vote against CAFTA is a vote against new American jobs.

Another argument used by those who oppose trade is concern for the trade deficit, but as I just pointed out, our markets are already 80 percent open to the CAFTA countries. It is their markets that are mostly closed to us. Therefore, CAFTA can only help ease the trade deficit.

Now, other people argue that CAFTA will somehow increase illegal immigration. The opposite is, of course, true. Most illegal aliens do not come to America because they love hot dogs, baseball, and apple pie. They come quite simply because they are poor, and they need to feed their families. Trade with these Central American countries will help make the Central American countries more prosperous. Greater Central American prosperity will lead to fewer desperate workers, which in turn will lead to fewer illegal immigrants than would otherwise come over.

The CAFTA understanding on immigration measures explicitly states that it does not impose on the parties any obligations with respect to foreigners seeking employment or residency. Simply put: A vote against CAFTA is actually a vote for more illegal immigration.

Another argument which just simply does not stand up to scrutiny, Mr. Speaker, is that somehow, some way, somewhere the U.S. loses sovereignty. CAFTA is a voluntary agreement with our neighbors to lower tariffs according to a mutually agreed-upon schedule. If any country violates their commitments, other countries, of course, are free to retaliate as they wish. But no international body can make or change U.S. law. Again, no international body can change or make U.S. law. All we do is agree to a nonbinding dispute resolution that we are free to ignore at our will.

Mr. Speaker, we must pass CAFTA and the free trade it represents. Free trade delivers greater choice of goods and services to our consumers at lower prices. That means American families can buy better products using less of their paychecks. It is all about competition, and competition has always helped the consumer. We have over 200 years of history to prove it. And it does not matter if that competition comes from Nashville, Nicaragua, El Paso, or El Salvador.

Over the past few years, prices have dropped for a wide array of goods and services that are produced around the world, such as video equipment and toys, yet we pay a whole lot more for products that do not compete with foreign countries; for example, prescription drugs and cable TV. Competition works. Trade works. No one should come to this floor claiming to speak for low-income Americans and oppose CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, beyond all the obvious economic benefits of free trade, we must recognize that this is fundamentally an issue of personal freedom. Nations do not trade with nations. People trade with people. With the exception of national security considerations, every American citizen should have the right to determine the origin of the goods and services that they want to purchase. Is this not the land of the free? Have not generations fought and sacrificed to secure the blessings of liberty?

Now, maybe we in Congress have the power, but do we have the right, do we have the moral authority to tell a waitress in Topeka, Kansas, she cannot buy a can of beans to help feed her family because it comes from El Salvador? Do we have the right, do we have the moral authority to tell a construction worker in New York that he cannot buy a pretty blue dress for his 3-year-old daughter because it comes from Honduras? Shame on us if we claim we do have that right.

Mr. Speaker, for over 200 years America has benefited from more trade and greater competition. I urge my colleagues to once again reject raw protectionism, reject bitter partisanship, and stand for freedom, stand for prosperity, stand for free trade and vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.