Floor Statements

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

It has been a great debate tonight. I am not supporting this bill because I believe that it will lower drug prices substantially in the long term. I do not believe that it will. But what it will do is, as has been pointed out earlier tonight, it will force some of the other countries who have been freeloading off of us for far too long to pay some of the costs of R&D to develop these medicines for the future. That is important.

I want to also read this. From ``The Wealth of Nations,'' Adam Smith addressed this issue. He said: ``To narrow competition can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax on the rest of their fellow citizens.''

The absurd tax has been paid by Americans for far too long. It ought to be shared by the rest of the world to pay for the cost of research and development.

Madam Speaker, for the past few weeks, I have come to the floor of the House of Representatives to address an issue that I believe has to be addressed with a comprehensive legislative solution. The issue is illegal migration and our current immigration policies.

Madam Speaker, this is certainly a very complex issue. Unfortunately, it involves a historical policy of turning a blind eye to the reality of the demand for workers for certain jobs in this country. Our migration policy has also not done a very good job of recognizing the way that people organize and lead their lives.

We must recognize that the U.S. economy and standard of living are better than that of Mexico. Mexicans migrate to the United States not simply because wages are higher, but because Americans are willing to hire them. The demand for these workers will not diminish for the foreseeable future. In a recent report published by Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute, we know that the Labor Department has reported that the largest growth in absolute numbers of jobs will be in those categories that require ``short-term on-the-job training'' of 1 month or less.

In fact, of the top 30 categories with the largest expected job growth between 2000 and 2010, more than half fall into that least- skilled category. These are all occupations where low-skilled immigrants can be expected to help meet the rising demand for workers. Across the U.S. economy the Labor Department estimates that the total number of jobs requiring only short-term training will increase from 51 million in 2000 to 61 million in 2010. That is a net increase of 7.7 million jobs. Meanwhile, the supply of American workers suitable for such work continues to fall because of an aging workforce and rising education levels.

The median age of U.S. workers continues to increase as baby boomers approach retirement age. From 1990 to 2010, the median age for the American worker is expected to rise from 37 years to 41 years. Further, younger and older American workers alike are now more educated. The share of adult native-born men without a high school diploma has plunged from 54 percent in 1960 to just 9 percent in 1998. During the same period, the share of workers with college degrees has gone up from 11 percent to 30 percent.

Certainly we recognize the fastest growing occupations in the next decade in percentage terms will require high degrees of skill and education. But as the economy continues to pick up steam, we have to recognize the realities of labor market demands. The demand for lower- skilled workers is growing while the American workforce is aging and increasingly well-educated.

Madam Speaker, I would argue that it is no coincidence that the number of low-skilled jobs in this country is expected to grow by more than 700,000 a year. That is precisely the number of new illegal immigrants that the Federal Government now estimates are entering the U.S. job market every year. If this is not an affirmation of this power of the market, and simple supply and demand, I do not know what is. We have to consider that for an illegal worker, the prospect of unemployment in the United States is far more expensive than a similar situation in his or her home country. If jobs are not available, the treacherous journey across the border is simply not worth the risk.

To conclude, permitting immigrants to enter the country as part of a temporary worker program will eliminate a huge segment of the illegal traffic coming across and within our borders. At the same time, such a strategy will recognize that our economy continues to expand, and, as such, the expansion will require new workers.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on amendment No. 2, as amended, the Hyde-Lantos amendment, which was agreed to in the Committee of the Whole.

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

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

I did not plan to come here and speak tonight on this subject. I wanted to speak a little later, but I could not let this pass. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas for standing up to this tonight.

To hear the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle, it is just surreal. We are talking here and I keep hearing tax credit. Tax credit, tax credit, tax credit. Tax credit to me, and I think to most Americans, implies some sort of tax liability. If an individual does not have that amount of tax liability, how could it be a tax credit? I understand we may want to have a debate around here about ways to aid families who are in need. If we are going to have that debate, let us have it on the right terms. Let us call it something different. Let us not call it a tax credit if there is no tax liability there. Let us call it whatever, something else. But let us take it for what it is. It is a redistribution of income from some people to other people. Let us not call it a tax credit.

And as for the claim that individuals do pay other taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, surely they do. Surely they do. But this is the Federal Government, and we are stewards of money that comes here to the Federal Government, and we should not try to distribute money based on what individuals pay in their home States. If we did that, then we would be in a world of hurt here. We are stewards of money that comes to the Federal Government, and we ought to give tax credit where it is due and where it is deserved, and that is for those who pay taxes. I think that is a principle that we should not violate. There are other programs, and we have talked about them and debated them; but let us have that debate on the right terms and call it something different than a tax credit.

And again I commend the gentleman from Texas for saying what he has said and for doing it so articulately.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue a series of discussions I am having on the unforeseen and undesirable effects resulting from our Nation's current immigration policies.

There has been much talk in recent years about ``holding the line'' against the flood of illegal immigrants flowing across our Nation's borders. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my comments last week, our recent attempts to control the border have not been a resounding success. I certainly do not believe that our Nation's borders should be left wide open. Especially today, in light of terrorist threats, we must know who is entering the country and leaving the country.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we currently have very little idea who is entering the country outside of the legal ports of entry on the border. Some have estimated that 700,000 illegal immigrants breach our borders every year.

We can try to tighten our border enforcement even more than we already have, but as long as the U.S. offers Mexicans more opportunity for work than Mexico does, for example, people risk their lives to cross the border.

According to Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, ``A real effort to control the border with Mexico would require perhaps 20,000 agents and the development of a system of formidable fences and other barriers along the parts of the borders used for illegal crossings.''

I believe the wisdom of embarking on such a project is questionable, at best. Rather, I would submit that a program that allows these workers to enter the country legally is a smarter national security strategy.

Regularizing the flow of workers across the U.S.-Mexico border will give the Federal Government the opportunity to get a handle on who is present in the United States. It will also free up resources for border security and the war on terrorism.

While there are border crossers who have malicious intentions, locating them among the throngs of illegal immigrants is akin to finding a needle in a haystack. By drastically reducing the number of illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, we can shrink that haystack and more easily target those entering the U.S. who wish to do us harm.

We in Arizona recently saw an example of the troubling violence that can occur when criminal aliens are not apprehended. A United States Park Ranger at Organ Pipe Cactus National

Monument, Kris Eggle, was shot and killed while chasing Mexican drug smugglers last summer. Eliminating the majority of illegal border traffic would make it easier to track down and prosecute criminals like Chris Eggle's killer.

The vast majority of those entering the country illegally are looking for the opportunity to work hard and improve their lot in life, not to commit terrorist acts. According to statistics provided by the Border Patrol, only 1 percent of those apprehended on the southwest border are come into the U.S. to commit crimes.

Permitting those already present in the United States to participate in the program would also encourage millions of currently undocumented workers to register with the government. Shrinking the undocumented population would provide less cover for terrorists who do enter the country and attempt to blend in.

A temporary worker program would deal a severe blow to the black market that currently supports illegal immigrants as well. The demand for people smugglers, fraudulent documents, and other enterprises that facilitate illegal immigration would be greatly reduced.

Mr. Speaker, regularizing the flow of undocumented migrants entering the country will greatly improve our Nation's border security, help us fight the war on terrorism, and redirect resources that have not been used effectively through our current immigration policy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and with all deference to the distinguished chairmen who have spoken here, I think that we do need to speak out at this point.

I have been concerned about this for a while. I sent a letter recently to NIH asking that they explain their decision to fund a study that is not covered here, it is another study, that paid women to watch pornography and to study arousal. The letter I received back was interesting. The NIH said, ``The research methods used in the grant were scientifically established and met ethical research standards.''

Now, I do not doubt that at all; but that is not the standard that we ought to employ here. The standard we ought to employ here is, is this a proper use of taxpayer funds, and I think on that level it surely fails.

I do not know how in the world, when we do not have enough money to fund things like the reaction of children to vaccines for childhood autism, that is one request that was actually denied because NIH came back and said we do not have sufficient money to do that, that is a serious disease affecting a lot of people. So we do not have enough money to do that; but then, in turn, we have enough money to fund a study to pay women to watch pornography. I think that is wrong.

The chairman noted there is peer review. Certainly there is. Again, the question we need to have answered is not whether this is scientifically based or reviewed, but is it proper for the taxpayers to fund. I would suggest that there is a lot of funding available out there from people like Larry Flint or others, but we should not be asking the American taxpayer to fund this kind of thing.

Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote Nos. 334, 335 and 336. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 334, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 335, and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 336.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the untenable situation facing our country as a result of our current immigration policies. I certainly do not believe that our Nation's borders should be left wide open. Especially today, in light of terrorist threats, we must keep track of who is entering and leaving the country. We can try to tighten up our border enforcements even more than we already have; but as long as the U.S. offers aliens more opportunity for work, people will risk their lives to cross the border.

From 1986 to 1998, the number of tax dollars that Congress appropriated for the INS increased eightfold and for the Border Patrol sixfold. The number of Border Patrol agents assigned to the southwest border doubled to 8,500.

The end result of this huge increase in enforcement efforts? More than 7 million illegal aliens reside within U.S. borders. How can we honestly tell the taxpayers that this strategy has been a success?

The increase in border enforcement has made it less likely that undocumented workers who have successfully entered the country will return home. Crossing the border is risky, so illegal workers are increasingly reluctant to repeat the trip more often than necessary once they are here. Also, smugglers are expensive. So workers must remain in the U.S. longer to pay for the high cost of crossing the border.

Before the Immigration Reform and Control Act, or the IRCA, became law in 1986, the average trip of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. lasted 3 years. After IRCA, the average trip length has risen to 8.9 years. It seems that increased border enforcement has been effective at keeping illegal immigrants in the United States.

The enormous rise in trip length has had a devastating effect on the cost of public service, particularly in my home State of Arizona. The longer illegal immigrants stay in the U.S., the more it costs local governments to provide services like health care, education, and criminal costs.

Another disturbing trend is the loss of life experienced by those who are attempting to enter the U.S. According to the Border Patrol, 146 aliens died in my home State of Arizona in 2002 while attempting to enter the country from Mexico. Nearly every day the desert claims another life of an illegal immigrant attempting to cross the border, most likely those seeking work or a chance for making a better life for themselves and their families.

Is the answer to this problem to abandon any hope of enforcing our borders and swinging the door wide open to anyone who wishes to enter the country? Of course not. We can enforce our borders in a smarter way and greatly reduce the flow of illegal migration across them.

Rather than denying the reality of labor migration, we should instead work to regularize it and manage it within a legal framework so as to promote economic development abroad, minimize costs and disruptions for the United States and maximize benefits for all affected. Congress can and should consider an initiative that would alleviate many of the burdens that Arizona and the rest of the country suffer due to the problem of illegal immigration.

A temporary foreign worker program would direct the flow of workers into legal channels and promises to aid the government in getting a handle on who is here and who is crossing the border.

I support a program that would allow these workers legal entry into the U.S. so that they can perform the jobs that U.S. employers are offering. This legal framework would allow the U.S. to collect taxes and would provide the workers a safe and legal way to return to their homes and families.

I would submit that such a system would be far preferable than the status quo that we have today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of some reluctance to take a position at variance with the leadership of my party. I do so, however, because I believe that the direction we are headed with this bill on prescription drugs is inconsistent with the Republican Party's principles of limited government, economic freedom, and individual responsibility.

I hope that my opposition to this bill does not imply my support for the

Democratic alternative. While we Republicans are surely headed off the fiscal cliff, the Democrats' plan would only get us there much faster.

This legislation is a prime example of the question debated in high school civics classes all over the country: Are we as Members of Congress sent to Washington to vote the wishes of our constituents or the demands of our conscience?

We have all read the polls. It is clear that seniors want a prescription drug benefit as part of a traditional Medicare. Further, seniors seem skittish when it comes to substantive Medicare reform. These findings are often cited by supporters of the legislation. Rarely cited, but certainly understood, is the fact that seniors vote in numbers disproportionate to their size of the electorate.

But as sitting Members of Congress, we are also aware that adding a new entitlement of this size is wholly unsustainable. Even without this new entitlement, Medicare will go bankrupt within the next couple of decades. The $400 billion, 10-year estimate for this add-on will almost certainly spiral out of control, just as Medicare's costs have ballooned far beyond original estimates.

So what are we to do? Do we vote as the polls tell us we should vote? After all, if it is what our constituents want, can we not simply vote ``aye'' and wash our hands of the matter?

We are not the first Congress to face such questions. More than 200 years ago, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had a similar dilemma. Many in this new country wanted a governmental structure similar to the one that they were used to, rather than what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

George Washington's words to the Constitutional Convention should instruct us today: ``If, to please the people we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work?''

George Washington understood what leadership is all about. It is not about riding the wave of public opinion, but in changing its course. It would have certainly been more comfortable for the Founding Fathers to go along with what they perceived to be the will of the people, rather than to persuade them that there was a better way. Many generations later, we are grateful for their leadership.

So here we are today. As Members of Congress, we know that adding a prescription drug benefit without reforming Medicare will only hasten its bankruptcy. By our own estimates, this plan will add about $7.8 trillion to Medicare's unfunded liability. Somehow, I doubt that generations to come who are saddled with this debt will be hailing us as leaders.

Knowing all of this, can we defend our work? No, Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

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

I have enjoyed this debate today and also have enjoyed this debate we have had over the past couple of years. It sounds as if we have not debated this issue at all. We have. We have had countless hearings, two in Arizona, on this issue. So this issue has been debated.

I would suggest that while we are fiddling here, Arizona is burning. That is what we saw last year, certainly. The largest of the wildfires across the country was in Arizona. We lost a half a million acres. I would suggest that those who say there are differing opinions as to whether or not treated forests fare better after a big wildfire or during a big wildfire than untreated forests, that debate was settled in Arizona. Pictures have already been shown today of the difference in the forests that have been treated and those that have not.

I had the good fortune to grow up just a few miles from where that fire was raging last year. To watch what has happened since then, to watch the devastation in those communities that have not been able to even get into the forest and to salvage what little is left because of lawsuits already filed, or the Forest Service having to wait an entire year to put out contracts, simply to go through the process that it takes.

In Arizona, 11 of the 15 decisions to implement mechanical fuel treatment methods were appealed, and two of those were litigated. We do have a problem.

The Native Americans were mentioned. They certainly need some more exemptions and need to have their process moved forward.

But I would like to suggest that if you look at the tribal forests, if you look at the reservation land in Arizona, if it fared far better than the other lands simply because they have a more expedited process, that is what we are looking for here.

This is not an extreme piece of legislation. It is more tinkering around the edges if we go with the substitute.

Let me just suggest that while we are talking about what is political and what is good policy, one of the debates that we had and one of the amendments that is part of the Democratic substitute would narrow the so-called red zone around communities where the Democrats would like us to focus all of our activity to one-half mile.

Now, if we consider that in Arizona the fire, the Rodeo-Chedeski fire at times had embers that actually jumped 3 miles, 3 miles, more than six times the so-called red zone that the Democrat substitute would protect, I would suggest that it does no good to go ahead and protect an area for a half-mile around a community when we have a fire that will jump as much as 3 miles.

So if we have a process that actually sets good policy, then we will set politics aside. I would suggest that is what this bill does. I would urge support of the rule and support of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, last summer Arizona saw the most devastating fire of the 2002 fire season, the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire. The fire burned 500,000 acres of land and destroyed over 400 homes and millions of dollars worth of property.

Fortunately, due to the efforts of Apache firefighter Rick Lupe, 42, the towns of Show Low, Pinetop, Lakeside, Honda, Whiteriver and others narrowly escaped the same fate as those seared by the Rodeo-Chedeski fire.

Rick, in charge of a division of men, worked to halt the eastward expansion

of the fire that was sending embers more than 2 miles ahead of the flames and headed right for Highway 60 and the town of Show Low. Rick directed and participated in implementing burnouts, dozier lines, back burns, and other efforts to create a line of defense protecting the towns from what seemed to be the inevitable. He continued these activities even after his first attempt was blown over by the flames. Fortunately for the towns of Show Low, Pinetop, Lakeside, Honda and Whiteriver, this line of defense did in fact stifle and prevent the fire's run through these towns.

``He's not one of those guys who sits on the ridge with binoculars telling you what to do,'' said Jim Paxon, a Forest Service spokesman during the Rodeo-Chedeski Fire. I personally was in Show Low during Rick's heroic action and he was credited by all present with stopping the fire's progress toward Show Low.

It was his hands-on management approach that nearly took Rick's life last Wednesday. Rick and several others were working on a controlled fire. As Rick walked into a canyon to check the edge of the fire line, a storm front caused the wind to blow up and the fire surrounded Rick, leaving him to face the fire. The winds were so strong that it blew away his emergency shelter.

Without shelter, Rick lay down among the flames waiting for the fire to burn over him, and then walked a half mile out to find help. According to Dr. Daniel Caruso, Rick was burned over 40 percent of his body and is currently in critical condition, being treated for severe burns and damage to his lungs.

A family man, Rick is married to his wife, Evelyn, and is father to three sons, Sean, Daniel and Brent, each of whom plans to become a firefighter.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the courage of this man and his success in saving so many from the destruction of fire.

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

I too rise in reluctance to support this amendment in that the chairman does not support it. But I respect the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and I believe that we need to take into account that this is the first bill of the year, I believe, that actually goes over budget. We are 50 percent over budget. What the President asked for was $2 billion in the first year. We are going for $3 billion. I think it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the year if we are starting out this way.

As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) also pointed out, the U.N. Global Fund and others that will absorb this money may have a hard time absorbing it that quickly anyway, and I believe that is why the President only asked for $2 billion in the first place.

We should note that the Global Fund has been criticized by its head, who is currently Secretary Tommy Thompson, who said that it has some inefficiencies. One thing that has been noted is that the Office of the Secretariat spent $11 million on salaries last year for 65 staff members. That is an average of $170,000 per employee.

I would challenge those who say that we need to put this money in that quickly. We ought to go with the original request from the President, and I would urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman from Florida for authoring this important resolution. It is important to all of us.

For those of us who have followed the situation in Cuba, we have been saddened and sickened by the events that have happened over the last month, although I do not believe any of us have been surprised. This latest crackdown typifies the last 43 years now that Fidel Castro has been in power. It is all too typical.

Let us look at what is going on here. I had the opportunity to be in Cuba just less than a month ago and we met with several of the dissidents at that time. Hector Palacios, director of the Independent Center for Social Studies and the key organizer of the Varela Project, was just sentenced to 25 years. Oswaldo Alfonsa, also an organizer for the Varela Project, 18 years. Oscar Espinosa Chepe, an economist, former diplomat and independent journalist, 20 years.

As the gentleman from New York noted, I do not think anybody, anybody, believes that these people are guilty of the crimes that they have been charged with. They are simply guilty of voicing ideas and ideas that this regime is too afraid of.

This resolution is important because it allows us to let people across the country and across the world, and particularly those who sit on boards and commissions of the United Nations, to understand that a regime like this does not deserve to sit in judgment of others on human rights after what is going on right now, and after a record like this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1036.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment today, the reason that I come to the floor today is that I object to the airline provisions being added to this bill because it is a supplemental appropriation bill; and within an appropriation bill, we simply cannot do the things that we need to do long term for the airlines. All we do is ensure that they will be back 6 months later for a similar appropriation.

On an appropriation bill we cannot deal with tax relief, for example, and $25 for every $100 ticket is taxes and fees to the Federal Government. We cannot deal with that on an appropriation bill.

We cannot deal with regulatory relief as well. There are higher antitrust standards that apply to airlines that do not to other industries. We need to look at that. There are limits as far as access to equity capital that apply to the airlines that do not to other industries. Those we cannot deal with in a supplemental appropriation bill.

The reason for bringing this forward is to ensure that we simply do not appropriate an amount that ensures that we have the airlines come back and simply need the same thing 6 months, 8 months, a year from now; and that is surely what we will have if we go through with this.

We are turning the airlines into folks that want to compete under a regular business model into folks that simply will hire more lobbyists and rely on the generosity of taxpayers and appropriators forevermore. We are creating, unless we change this process, an Amtrak in the air where we simply, through appropriation, keep an industry going.

We cannot do that and for that purpose, I have agreed to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to talk about what we might do in the future.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I thank the gentleman for this colloquy and discussion.

We simply cannot deal with the tremendous issues that we have to deal with in terms of tax relief, regulatory reform and to decide, as the gentleman from Missouri appropriately put it, what obligations the airlines actually have and what obligations should we, as general taxpayers or society, bear in terms of security costs; but we cannot have those discussions on appropriations measures.

We cannot wait in between bailouts every year or so to decide how much each airline gets to enact a formula. That is why we need to enter into these discussions in between, when the crisis is not right at hand; and with that understanding, I will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing forward this amendment. For myself I am not sure this is a proper way to spend AmeriCorps funding, but certainly it is not the proper place as part of this bill. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) correctly pointed out, for moving forward we need to have a vehicle where you can actually reform, where you can actually make changes, where you can actually do good things moving ahead. You cannot do that as part of the supplemental. Just like it was with the airline money. You cannot reform. You cannot do what you need to do as part of an emergency war supplemental.

What kind of message are we sending to our constituents and taxpayers across the country when we say that AmeriCorps funding, $64 million, needs to be part of a war supplemental? That just breeds the cynicism that it ought to. We should not be doing this. The amendment is justified. I would urge support of it and I thank the gentleman for bringing it forward.