Floor Statements

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

I want to rise in strong support of this legislation, and I want to commend the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for the work that they have done in advancing this bill, which will benefit both America and Vietnam for years to come. And I want to especially pay tribute to the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee for his long service in this Congress and for the work that he has done over the years in the area of trade, which has made such advances for better relations between the United States and other countries and improved the lot of people in other countries as well as the lot of workers and citizens here at home in the United States. His service will be greatly missed in the next Congress.

Permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam is the next logical step in our partnership with that country. Back in 1995, with my support and that of many others on both sides of the

aisle, we embarked on a new path of political progress with Vietnam. We restored political relations and we restored economic relations. We recognized how important it was to integrate a former adversary into the global economy.

Then in December of 2001, we passed a bilateral trade agreement that has spurred economic growth for all parties. By the end of 2005, two- way trade between the United States and Vietnam had reached nearly $8 billion, a huge increase from the base it started at just a few years earlier. Now, with the passage of this legislation, with the adoption of permanent normal trade relations, we will magnify those benefits and we will allow the United States and Vietnam to work as partners in the World Trade Organization.

The impact for our Nation will be especially dramatic in the services sector. The bill will provide more open access in telecommunications, financial services, and energy services. This is crucial, absolutely crucial, for jobs here at home in the United States. Eighty percent of the American workforce is in the service sector.

At the same time, this legislation is about more than just economics, and I think that those on both sides of the aisle recognize this fact. Permanent normal trade relations will promote additional domestic reforms in Vietnam. By increasing transparency in that country's trade practices, this bill will contribute to greater transparency in all areas of government.

From the first time that I visited Vietnam after my service in the conflict there, more than 15 years ago, to today we have seen enormous changes take place in the political structure of Vietnam. And as a Vietnam veteran, I find this especially heartwarming and especially important. We are working and we must continue to work on behalf of development and of good governance in Vietnam.

This legislation shows us that Vietnam's best interests can align with the interests of this country as well, and this is what free trade is all about. This is what free trade does for two countries, and this is why this bill has bipartisan support, and it is why it will pass, why it should pass, today.

I can only hope that in the next Congress my colleagues will take the same commonsense approach to other trade bills that will be considered and that they will have the courage to embrace a free trade agenda which will benefit Americans and people around the world alike.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 492, my vote was not recorded.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 483, my vote was not recorded.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 494, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5016, the Las Cienegas Enhancement Act.

I would like to thank Chairman Pombo of the Resources Committee and Chairman Walden of the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee for their leadership and support of this measure.

The land exchange in this legislation releases an urban parcel of federal land in the path of development, and it puts into federal hands an outlying area important for its natural beauty and proximity to the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area and the Coronado National Forest. It will provide hunters and visitors much-needed road access to the Whetstone Mountains, a ``sky island'' that is being surrounded by development.

This exchange proposal has been developed through a 4-year consultative process. The exchange has the support of the Governor of Arizona, the City Manager of Tucson, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, conservationists and private landowners. The Pima County Board of Supervisors also supports the bill for helping protect open space in the Cienega Valley.

The two parcels of land proposed in exchange are located near Tucson in the eastern half of Pima County.

The Bureau of Land Management parcel is a federal inholding of 1,280 acres located near Corona de Tucson, a community on the urbanized fringe of greater Tucson.

The private parcel offered for exchange consists of 2,707 acres of upland Sonoran desert adjacent to the Coronado National Forest and close to both the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area and the Cienega Creek Natural Preserve, which are administered by Pima County.

Land appraisals will follow statutory procedures and be subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior.

Madam Speaker, I believe that this bill stands as a shining example of what can be achieved when local community groups and the BLM work together to maximize both the recreation and conservation goals of our federal lands, allowing the enhancement and protection of our lands, rivers, creeks, and wildlife that enrich our lives in the West.

In sum, I am pleased to offer this bill as a capstone to my resource conservation efforts during 11 terms in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the second consecutive week to remind the House that the time has passed for half measures on immigration reform.

None of the bills we debate today will secure our border unless they are coupled with a more comprehensive approach. Some of them are good bills and should be part of wider legislation to secure the border and make our immigration system work. But on their own, these proposals fall short because they only look at the enforcement side of the equation. Put them together with the bill we passed last week, add the enforcement-only package we passed in December, and throw in any other enforcement measures that you like and I promise you that all of them, collectively, won't win the fight against illegal immigration.

Without a total fix--one that gets at the root of the problem--we will continue to see people finding a way to get into the United States in pursuit of jobs and a better way of life. Fences won't stop them. And stopgap measures by this body will not stop them.

The Senate majority leader has said that there isn't even time to take up all these half-measures in the other chamber; it is highly doubtful that any of these will become law.

Mr. Speaker, let us put away these half measures and go to conference with the Senate on the bill this chamber passed--H.R. 4437--and the bill the Senate passed--S. 2611. We need a comprehensive fix to the problem and that means dealing with all parts of it, not just criminal aliens and the end of ``catch and release.'' Those are all part of the solution, but on their own, they fall short. Without a guest worker program and a recognition of the 12 million undocumented immigrants living in our midst, we will only exacerbate the problem.

So what are we really debating here? Nothing. We've sent a bill to the Senate, and they've sent a bill back to us. The time for playing games is past. The American people want action--they want a solution that works.

Let's negotiate with the Senate and find a comprehensive solution that will secure our borders once and for all. Let us reject these piecemeal bills and do what's right for the American people; let us go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 4437 and S. 2611.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 450, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall no. 449, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 448, my vote was not recorded.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman from New York for his consideration as well.

Mr. Chairman, here we are again. Nine months ago, we were on this floor passing half measures to deal with the problem. Now we are back to dealing with it in quarter measures. We don't need these kinds of approaches. We know what the problems are. We don't need to have the faux hearings all over the country that we had this summer to tell us what the problems are.

The time has come to reject these kinds of partial measures, more of the same that we have been doing, and get at the root of the problem. And the root of the problem, as we well know, is the job magnet that exists in this country, that pulls migrants in, that makes them willing to do the jobs that most Americans are not willing to do, hard, back- breaking work out in the hot sun.

Fences are not going to stop these people from coming. They are determined to come here. They have been coming against all odds, and they are going to continue to come.

Furthermore, half of all the people who are in this country illegally came here on a legal visa. This doesn't do anything to deal with that, it doesn't do anything to deal with the people who come from other than across our southern border, and it doesn't really deal with that.

We need to have a comprehensive fix to the problem. I know people are tired of hearing that word, ``comprehensive,'' but tell me a better word to describe something that deals with all of the parts of the problem and that that is what we don't have here. Not just fencing, not just sensors, not just UAVs. Those are important. Those are part of the problem. And I have no difficulty with the idea of a fence, but we need to have it as something more than just on its own. By itself, this falls very short.

We have got to have a guest worker program. We have got to have a realistic, honest assessment and solution to the 12 million people who are in this country now in an undocumented status. Unless we do that, we only exacerbate the problem.

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence that any terrorist has come across our southern border. None. And that was testified to time and again this summer. So if we are really concerned about terrorists, we ought to be much more concerned about our northern border, where there are many more miles of unprotected border without camera sensors, without fencing. And it is also a country where we know there are terrorist cells that exist there. So we know that the problem exists up there.

So what are we really debating here? We are really not debating anything that is of substance. This is a feel-good piece of legislation. We have sent the bill to the Senate. They have sent the bill back to us. This is simply a rerun of what we have done before.

Chairman King said a moment ago that we can't do everything, we ought to do something. Well, sometimes the half measures are actually things that make things worse.

What we need to do, and we know that we can get more than this, all we have to do is be willing to walk 100 yards across the Capitol to the other side and negotiate, to start talking with them about a comprehensive solution, something that will secure our borders once and for all.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that we reject this piecemeal, this rerun bill, and do what is right for the American people. Let's go to conference with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 447, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I am pleased today to rise in strong support of this agreement, the Oman Free Trade Agreement.

With the Doha Round of multilateral talks teetering on the brink of collapse, we need more than ever to pursue a bilateral trade agenda that makes some real gains for American workers and American consumers who, after all, are one and the same. That is

precisely what the Oman Free Trade Agreement does.

The Oman FTA is quite simply a win-win. In 2005, trade between the United States and Oman exceeded $1 billion. The U.S. exported $594 million in goods alone to Oman last year. While some will stand here today, beat their breasts and claim that we are going to lose jobs with this trade agreement, nothing could be further from the truth.

I ask Members to think back to economics 101. Exporting goods creates jobs here at home, and importing goods will create jobs. Consumer and industrial goods will be 100 percent duty free on day one of the trade agreement's entry into force. There will be significant gains in the agriculture and service sectors. These are the kinds of tangible changes we want and we need to bring home to our constituents.

Liberalization of trade in services is sometimes overlooked, but it is absolutely essential to keeping our economy competitive. The services sector represents 75 percent of our country's economic output and it is 80 percent of our workforce. U.S. firms have a strong advantage in the services sector, and it becomes even stronger as we add each country like Oman to an FTA.

But the economic gains are relatively small compared to the impact that a trade agreement with Oman will have in keeping Americans safe. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended a comprehensive strategy to defeat terrorism, that includes economic policies, that encourages development, more open societies and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families.

As a result of this recommendation, the administration authorized negotiations with Oman as part of the plan to create a Middle East Free Trade Area by 2013. This is a step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this free trade agreement.

Oman leads the Persian Gulf in establishing trade and other ties with Israel. It has eliminated all aspects of its boycott with Israel and when Oman acceded to the WTO in 2000, it did not request an exemption for Israel that would allow it to maintain a boycott. This is a rare exception in a tough neighborhood. I ask my colleagues today to join me in showing our commitment to Oman, is a steadfast ally in a region of the world where we need all the friends we can get.

Vote for the Oman Free Trade Pact.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join many of my colleagues today in opposing the President's veto of H.R. 810. I do so reluctantly. I think the overriding of a veto of any President should be undertaken with caution, but in this case I believe it is necessary.

When the House considered this bill last year, our debate focused on the ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research. Those dilemmas are real, and they've been thoroughly addressed in the bill we passed.

What hasn't been noted enough, however, is the importance this bill has for American innovation. The President himself has written--quote-- ``Through America's investments in science and technology, we have revolutionized our economy and changed the world for the better. Groundbreaking ideas generated by innovative minds in the private and public sectors have paid enormous dividends--improving the lives and livelihoods of generations of Americans.''

These words are true--and to his credit, the President has backed them up with his American Competitiveness Initiative, a set of proposals that every Member in this House has embraced.

So I ask my colleagues: what field will prove more crucial to American competitiveness, to human well-being, to economic growth, than the biological sciences? And what area of research holds more promise in the biological sciences than stem cells?

Over the past two decades, three-quarters of the researchers who have won the Nobel Prize in medicine have studied or taught in the United States. Can we really expect to retain the global leadership if we can't even pass a bill, a thoughtful, bipartisan bill, that assures the moral study of embryonic stem cells? ``Assures.'' I use the word deliberately, because no other nation will meet, let alone exceed, the ethical guidelines and constraints embodied in Castle-DeGette. Each of us knows that.

The sooner we pass this bill into law, the sooner America becomes the hub for this research, the sooner our ethical standards become the de facto standards governing stem cell science around the world.

So Castle-DeGette isn't just about taking the scientific lead on embryonic stem cells, it is about taking the moral lead, setting an ethical standard for research that will take place whether this bill becomes law or not. I urge my colleagues to override this veto.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed constitutional amendment before us today illustrates exactly why those who wrote the Constitution of the United States went to such extraordinary lengths to ensure that it was a long and arduous task to amend it.

The procedure to pass a constitutional amendment was designed specifically to compel the Nation and its leaders to carefully consider the significant and profound implications such a change could bring. This issue simply fails to meet the threshold of what the Framers called a ``great and extraordinary occasion.'' But of even greater significance is the issue of individual rights. This proposed amendment would be the first time we would amend that document to restrict human freedoms, rather than to protect and expand them.

Let's be honest. This bill has been brought to the House floor by the leadership solely because of election-year politics. The very process by which this bill comes up is an affront to this institution. Like previous attempts, it was not considered by any committee of the House, it was not brought to the floor by the chairman of that committee, rather it was brought by the leadership, who decided to take it upon themselves to do the work of the committees and their chairmen.

Moreover, this same legislation was considered in the Senate, where it didn't even receive a majority vote, much less the required two- thirds for a constitutional amendment. Why then are we rushing to judgment here today? What is the compelling reason to consider this now?

Sixteen States have passed constitutional amendments that would define marriage in their own States as being between a man and a woman. Others, including my own State, are considering such amendments this year. While I may disagree with the voters in my State or any State in adopting such an amendment to their constitution, that is their prerogative, and State constitutions are where they should be considered.

For better than 200 years, family law has been exclusively the domain of the States. That is where it should remain. Vice President Cheney said exactly this, and I agree with him. The chief crafter of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, former Representative Bob

Barr, said as much, and I agree with him. Marriage and divorce, inheritance and adoption, child custody, these are matters correctly left to the States. It does not belong in the Constitution of the United States.

But that is the genius of our Federal system, to allow States to find solutions to issues such as family law which work uniquely for them. The States can pass their own laws, and many have. We should not be in the business of passing a constitutional amendment to make this point. And we certainly should not be tampering with the Constitution to address an ongoing societal dialogue on, admittedly, a very difficult subject.

Amending the Constitution is, thankfully, a difficult task. That cumbersome process has saved us from making ill-advised changes during these past 215 years. It will save us now from this ill-advised action.

We have not used the amending process to limit the rights of citizens. From the first amendment to the 14th, the original Framers and the Congress that followed have sought to expand, to protect the rights of citizens. This would be a unique amendment in that it takes away rights from one group while specifically conferring them upon another. Try to find another provision in the Constitution that does this. You will look in vain.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress and those after should be about protecting and expanding freedoms. This proposed amendment to our Constitution is about discrimination. It is about fear. It is unnecessary. It is unwarranted, and it should be soundly defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the amendment, not to speak against Amtrak, but really where these funds would come from.

As the previous speaker under Mr. Knollenberg's time, Mr. Culberson said it comes out of our border security infrastructure. Much of that is right in the heart of Arizona. The Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry and the San Luis Port of Entry are located on the Arizona-Mexico border, not in my district, but in the area and will enhance security while promoting economic development and improving the quality of life in the border region.

The first project is the reconfiguration of the Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry. It is the principal commercial crossing on the southern border during much of the year. It processes half of all the winter fruits and vegetables entering the United States. It was built in the 1970s, and it was never built to handle the volume of traffic it now receives.

During the peak season, it is absolutely overwhelmed. Trucks line up for hours and miles and miles and miles into Mexico waiting to cross. In addition the post-9/11 requirements of the Bioterrorism Act and other security measures have added to the congestion of the port. This is a project that would be cut under this amendment.

The second project is the construction of the new port of entry at San Luis, and that is the highest priority on the southern border and President's requested $42 million.

I urge that we defeat this amendment because of where the funds are being taken from.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because the funding it would remove from the bill would be terribly detrimental to our border security infrastructure, at precisely the time when we are finally turning our attention towards fixing our border and stopping illegal immigration.

The Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry and San Luis Port of Entry are located on the Arizona-Mexico border and will enhance security while promoting economic development and improving the quality of life in the border region and across the country.

The first project is the reconfiguration of the Nogales/Mariposa Port of Entry to expand the port and enhance border security. Mariposa is one of the principal commercial crossings on the southern border; it processes half of the winter fruits and vegetables entering the United States. Built in the 1970's, Mariposa was never intended to handle the volume of traffic it now receives. During the peak season, it is overwhelmed, as trucks line up for miles and wait many hours to cross. In addition, the new post 9/11 requirements under the Bioterrorism Act and other security measures have added to the congestion at the port. U.S. Customs and Border Protection therefore placed this project high on its list of priorities and the President requested $9 million for design funds in his budget. That funding is in this bill and would be cut by this amendment.

The second project is the construction of a new Port of Entry at San Luis. U.S. Customs

and Border Protection has also listed this project as its highest priority on the southern border and the President requested $42 million for design funds in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget.

Clearly, these vital projects must not be cut precisely when we are trying to fix our broken borders. In light of our heightened security needs, particularly at our southern border, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.