Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1129, the ``Pitkin County Land Exchange Act'', is a good bill that will bring an end to a longstanding land exchange issue.

The proposed exchange will transfer to Pitkin County a key scenic parcel along the Crystal River.

This key parcel is one of the scenic gems of the Roaring Fork Valley and deserves to be protected in its natural state.

Pitkin County, Colorado is an area of intense development and this exchange will help ensure their popular open space preservation efforts can continue.

Not only does this bill have the support of the Pitkin County Commissioners, but also many other community groups.

This land exchange is also in the best interest of the public to help ensure some of the most beautiful pristine areas stay undeveloped.

This is a good bill and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences to the Balcomb family of Glenwood Springs, Colorado who recently experienced a tragic loss with the death of Kenneth ``Blue'' Balcomb. He passed away on November 17th.

Recently, I had the opportunity to get to know Ken. He was a brilliant, devoted and talented person. Because of his genius, water on the Western Slope of Colorado will be protected for generations. Mr. Balcomb died Thursday and will be missed by all who had the pleasure of knowing and working with him.

Ken Balcomb was General Counsel for the Colorado River Water Conservation District from the early 1960s until 1981 when the District hired in-house counsel. Under Mr. Balcomb's advice and leadership, the River District successfully fought back aggressive water filings by Front Range cities and irrigation districts thirsting for West Slope water. It also fought federal intrusion into Colorado's state-run water rights system, ensuring that the federal government adjudicate its water rights like everyone else through Colorado's water courts. On this point, Mr. Balcomb represented the River District on three occasions before the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving victorious each time.

I grew to know Ken over the last year and he never hesitated to offer his experience, knowledge and assistance to myself and others.

Ken was certainly an inspiration to me and to everyone who had the opportunity to meet

him, and I am grateful for the short amount of time I was able to spend with him. I know my life and the lives of those he knew and loved were enriched by his presence, and he will surely be missed.

I agree with the Colorado River Water Conservation District--Western Colorado lost a true friend and leader with the passing of Kenneth Balcomb.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to designate part of the San Luis Valley in Colorado as the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area. In the 19th Century, the San Luis Valley was at the crossroads of cultures. As America spread west, Spanish, Anglo, and Native Americans converged to create a unique cultural experience.

A National Heritage Area designation will help increase local tourism, which currently represents less than 9 percent of the basic income of the affected counties. As tourism grows in this area, it will provide economic benefits to a rural region with a rich history.

Heritage designation also brings with it tangible financial support to restore historic buildings and sites; develop interpretive programs and museums; build regional trail systems and fund other improvements and enhancements.

Private participation and oversight is the cornerstone of the heritage concept. I believe this will also create opportunities and benefits for private landowners who contribute in the planning and demonstrate best practices management of their properties.

The activities of a functional heritage area will be able to tie-in and stimulate wider interest in attractions throughout the valley. This includes outdoor recreation activities on the extensive National Forest and other federal, state, and private lands, and increase visitation at museums, historic sites, and commercial attractions located in other counties bordering the heritage area.

Congress must act quickly to ensure the heritage elements preserved continue to have relevance for the people of the San Luis Valley and for the nation for generations to come. I urge my colleagues to support me in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I stand united with my fellow Blue Dogs in protest of this reckless budget vote that we will be taking this week. I have said time and time again that our budget is a moral document and it is about our priorities and values as a nation.

Let us be clear about this budget reconciliation and what it will do for America.

It will pay for tax cuts for the rich on the backs of our Nation's poorest, including low-income seniors who receive help from Medicaid.

It abandons rural America by proposing $1 billion in cuts to ag commodity programs.

It takes aim at valuable research and conservation programs that will help farmers to stay on the land.

And in a time when everyone is concerned about rising energy prices, this bill cuts funds for renewable energy programs. Yet none of these savings will go towards balancing the budget.

Together we can do better. We need to return to responsible budget principles that include pay-as-you-go spending. We need a balanced budget amendment. And we need a Federal budget that is honest with the American people.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this budget reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences to the Munoz family of Delta, Colorado, who recently experienced a tragic loss with the death of Fred V. Munoz. He passed away on October 7th at the age of 63.

Though Fred spent his childhood and was educated in California, he was not only a valued citizen of my district, but a dear friend as well. He served in the Army during the Vietnam War, and I honor him for his service. Furthermore, he was an exceptional leader in the Hispanic community, and served as president of the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association. His extraordinary achievements as a lawyer also included sitting as a member of the California Bar Association and serving on the board of the Hispanic Bar Association.

I grew to know Fred over the last year and he never hesitated to offer his support and assistance to myself and others. He had said he would always be ready to step up and do what he could in the years ahead, and though he may no longer be with us in physical presence, I have no doubt he will keep his word and join us in spirit.

Fred was certainly an inspiration to me and to everyone who had the opportunity to meet him, and I am grateful for the short amount of time I was able to spend with him. I know my life and the lives of those he knew and loved were enriched by his presence, and he will surely be missed.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from South Dakota for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, in my district, the values of faith, family, and commitment to community are sacred. We also hold sacred the right to own property without fear of its being taken away by government.

Unfortunately, local governments are seizing property in the name of economic development and transferring ownership to other private individuals. American citizens are losing their homes in the interest of building strip malls or big-box stores. Even more disheartening is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed this behavior in what I feel is a misinterpretation of the takings clause of the fifth amendment to the Constitution.

I voted to prohibit this kind of action when I was a State representative in Colorado, and I have also voted my disapproval of the ruling in the case of Kelo v. New London.

I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I supported passage of the STOPP Act, H.R. 3405, in the Agriculture Committee just last month.

This important legislation will help prevent local governments from abusing their power of eminent domain. While local governments may be well intentioned, the fact is that people are losing their homes because of misguided economic development principles.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure; and I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Bonilla, and Congresswoman Herseth for their dedication to persevering and protecting property rights.

The right to own property is a fundamental right of this country, and I will do whatever I can to ensure that it is preserved.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. beef industry is a critical economic component of rural communities. The safety standards of the USDA allows the U.S. to provide the safest food supply in the world.

In 2003, Japan imposed a ban on U.S. beef products after the discovery of a cow infected with mad cow disease that never entered the food chain. Since that time, USDA has implemented stronger, scientifically sound BSE controls, and has ramped up its enforcement, yet Japan continues to keep their borders closed to U.S. beef.

This unwarranted embargo by Japan has caused significant impacts to the U.S. cattle producers and beef processors. Today I am introducing legislation that will call on the U.S. Trade Representative to impose sanctions on Japan if they do not open their borders to our Nation's beef by December 31, 2005. Other Asian countries have since opened their borders to U.S. beef, and it is time for Japan to do the same. Therefore, I am asking my colleagues to support this legislation and bring an end to Japan's beef embargo.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in support of Senate bill 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the Committee on the Judiciary for all their hard work on this much-needed piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I consider myself a strong supporter of the second amendment to our Constitution and truly believe in the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.

For a long time, I have been very dismayed at the anti-gun lobby's effort to litigate the gun industry to death. Taking gun manufacturers, wholesalers, and distributors to court for the actions of criminals is ludicrous. These are mostly small to medium-sized business owners who cannot afford to pay lawyer fees to avoid lawsuits.

Senate bill 397 is a bipartisan effort to reform the civil liability system to ensure that those who lawfully make and sell firearms cannot be held liable for the misuse and criminal use of those firearms.

The current system is equivalent to someone stealing my Chevrolet truck, committing a crime with it, and then GM being sued for millions of dollars for their misdeeds. Now this, to me, is ridiculous. It is time for Congress to derail the efforts of certain organizations whose aim is to bankrupt the firearms industry through litigation.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting Senate bill 397, a commonsense measure to protect small businesses and preserve the second amendment rights of American citizens.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I support passage of H.R. 3765, as amended by the Senate. This bill extends through March 31 of 2006 the authority of the Secretary of the Army to accept and extends funding contributed by the non-Federal public entities to expedite the processing of permits under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbor Acts of 1899. This program is popular and well-received, particularly in the northwestern part of our country.

I congratulate my colleague from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his attention to this issue and for securing consideration of this bill. Thanks to the tireless efforts of the gentleman from Washington State, this short-term extension should quickly move to the President's desk for signature.

I can think of no other Member of Congress who has served his local and regional issues with more enthusiasm and effectiveness.

The language of H.R. 3765 is modeled after language in H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, which was passed by this House on July 14 by an overwhelming vote of 406 to 14.

As a freestanding bill, H.R. 3765 was approved by the House under suspension on September 20 in a voice vote. Although the length of authorization contained in this bill was shortened slightly by the Senate, even as modified this bill would continue to receive strong support.

Madam Speaker, despite concerns expressed by the other body, the Senate, on this legislation today, today's consideration of one of the provisions of the larger Water Resources Development Act should not be viewed as an indication that the larger bill will not be enacted later this year.

I remain optimistic that the other House of Congress will soon consider this vital legislation, particularly in light of the vital role of flood damage reduction, navigation and other storm damage reduction projects in protecting lives and properties and enhancing economic well-being. The tragic events associated with Hurricane Katrina indicate how important our water infrastructure truly is.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), our chairman of the subcommittee, for helping us on this issue. I urge support for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit recognition in honor of Pete Mattivi of New Castle, Colorado on the occasion of his 100th birthday. Since his earliest days, Pete has been dedicated to helping his community. He is well loved and respected by all who know him. With wishes for many more years of happiness and health, I congratulate Pete by submitting into the Congressional Record the following Glenwood Springs Post Independent article, dated September 12, 2005:

With a twinkle in his eyes and a smile on his face, Pete

Mattivi, of New Castle, credits ``wine, women and song'' with

reaching his 100th birthday.

But on a more serious note, he says it's friends, family

and his creator that allowed him to see his centennial year

on Sept. 8, 2005.

A birthday celebration held Sunday afternoon for Mattivi in

Burning Mountain Park drew a huge crowd and a long line of

people who wanted to congratulate him and wish him well.

With music by ``Heart of the Rockies'' and a buffet of

birthday cake and ice cream, Mattivi sat in a folding chair,

his cane over his legs as friends lined up to speak to him.

Some were old friends, in wheelchairs and walkers, and some

were newer friends who knew of the illustrious Mattivi,

although they might not have met him before.

``You are so wonderful--everybody loves you,'' said

longtime New Castle resident Rosie Ferrin.

``One hundred years old--you look great,'' another well-

wisher admired.

``I feel that way, too!'' Mattivi smiled and agreed.

Some shared old memories they had with Mattivi.

Liz Lewis, of Rifle, recalled when she was a school bus

driver in the 1970s and on a field trip with the kids while

Mattivi recounted the history of Marble for the students.

``It was one of the most interesting trips I'd ever been

on,'' Lewis said.

Mattivi has long been a well-known figure in the small town

that currently has a population of about 3,000.

Born in 1905, he was raised in Crystal and lived in Marble,

Salida and Glenwood Springs before settling in New Castle in

1929. There, he helped his brother, Matt, open a small

service station in town, which was booming at that time.

In 1931, he married Opal Woos and the two operated the

Mattivi Motor Company at 298 W. Main St. It was later the

Three Rivers Repair/Phillips 66 station. Mattivi retired from

the business in 1982. Opal Mattivi passed away in August

2000.

Mattivi was also a former longtime mayor of New Castle,

serving from 1954 to 1969, and from 1974 to 1981. He was a

Garfield County Commissioner from 1957 to 1977 and served 10

years on the Re-2 school board.

``Can we have your autograph?'' asked Karen Wentzel, the

wife of current mayor Bill Wentzel, when it was her turn in

line as she showed Mattivi a collage she had of his past

birthdays.

Mattivi graciously signed his name.

For years, Mattivi was known for his beautiful flower

gardens at his home on Main Street, just across the street

from where his daughter, Pam Bunn, now owns and operates the

New Castle Cafe.

``He comes in for breakfast every morning at 8:30 on the

dot,'' Bunn said with a laugh. ``He also comes to the senior

lunch and dinners.''

Mattivi sold a portion of his property on the west side in

1997 but continues to garden the rest.

And even at 100, he is still active, riding his scooter

across the street to the cafe and tending to his yard.

Mattivi has no big secrets to making it to the big 1-0-0.

``I live day by day,'' Mattivi said earnestly. ``The next

thing you know, you're 100. People have been good to me, and

my creator has been good to me. I've just followed what was

given to me.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. This important measure represents months of hard work and coalition building.

I thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, and Representatives Petri and DeFazio for their tremendous leadership during this time. I am proud to be a member of a committee that shows true bipartisanship and respect for one another.

As a member who represents one of the largest districts in the country, I see the immense needs across rural America. It was for this reason that I came to Congress--I want to make a difference for communities like mine, communities that don't always have a voice at the table. I intend to fight hard to make sure that rural Colorado gets its fair share of Federal funding.

I worked closely with my fellow Committee Members to craft a bill that truly represents the needs of all America. I urge my colleagues to vote for TEA-LU so we can finally put a bill on the President's desk for signature. By passing a transportation bill, localities can move forward with plans to build new roads, reinforce bridges, and invest in research and development to promote safer and cleaner technology.

Investment is the key word here--it is what this bill is all about. Infrastructure investment is the key to the free flow of trade. It is the key to connecting communities and promoting economic growth. And it is the key to stimulating jobs and industry development across the country.

This transportation report is a victory for rural Colorado. At a time when budgets are being slashed across the board, the communities in the Third Congressional District can expect a record number of federal dollars for our local highways.

The Transportation Reauthorization Conference report includes earmarks for important projects across the 3rd District of Colorado: $12 million for US-160, East of Wolf Creek Pass, $3.2 million for Dillon Drive Overpass, $6 million for US-50 State Line from Kansas to Pueblo, $5.2 million for the Glenwood Springs South Bridge, and $6 million for US-550 west side of Montrose.

By investing in our infrastructure now, we avoid problems down the line by reducing congestion and pollution, and improving safety on the roads. This funding will be a huge boost to economic development for the entire region. Nothing will make me happier than the President signing these rural development funds into law.

I am also pleased that the bill contains over $4.3 million in funding for bus and bus facilities across the third district. You don't always associate public transportation with rural areas but it is just as important in our communities as it is to larger urban areas. From Steamboat Springs to Crested Butte to Telluride, we are investing in the larger transportation system of a growing region.

Mr. Speaker, I once again would like to thank the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leadership and their staffs for their hard work on the bill we have before us today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of TEA-LU. We have forced communities and state and local governments to wait too long for critical resources.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will debate and vote on a proposal that supporters claim will solve the problem of increasingly unaffordable medical malpractice insurance premiums for our Nation's doctors. They argue that outrageous jury awards are to blame for rising healthcare costs.

I am afraid this bill is not the end-all, save-all solution to our health care crisis; and, in fact, I fear it will do nothing to relieve the burden our doctors face. If we are serious about lowering the cost of medical malpractice insurance why aren't we addressing the issue of insurance reform or ways in which we can weed out bad doctors, or for that matter, trial lawyers who abuse the court system?

This bill does little more than set a 1970's era cap on jury awards for medical malpractice cases, an action which will only hurt those who are already suffering--the patients and their loved ones.

An analysis of State by State medical malpractice insurance premiums, obtained from the Medical Liability Monitor, compared with caps on damages reveals no conclusive evidence these caps work. In fact, according to one survey, insurance premiums in states with caps were on average $4170 higher than those in States without caps.

This bill goes much further than simply addressing the medical malpractice insurance dilemma; it even sets caps on damages for nursing home neglect, unsafe prescription drugs, and a variety of other health- related industries. In 2004, Congress and others raised questions about the safety and effectiveness of several FDA-approved biomedical products on the market, including certain antidepressants, Merck's pain relief drug, Vioxx, Boston Scientific's cardiac stents, and other drugs and medical devices. Evidence has suggested that there were problems with these items during clinical trials.

Does this Congress really want to protect companies who knowingly put dangerous products on the market? I know I don't.

H.R. 5 does not go nearly far enough to address the climbing medical malpractice insurance rates or the healthcare crisis our constituents are trying to negotiate. I again pose the questions, why doesn't this bill address the insurance industry; why aren't we trying to weed out bad doctors; or punish trial lawyers who abuse the system?

We need something more than caps on jury awards to lower the cost of health care in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the conference report on H.R. 2361, the Interior Appropriations bill. This important piece of legislation provides $1.5 billion to remedy the shortfall in veterans' health care for this year. Earlier this month, I stood here urging this body to step up to the plate when it comes to veterans. Our veterans must be our number one priority. By passing this measure, we take the first step in fulfilling our obligation to the men and women who have served our country with honor and dignity.

Passage of this bill is a necessity--I will never turn my back to our Nation's veterans. However, I do want to take this opportunity to discuss my concerns with the larger measure

and its failure to address the land and water conservation and management needs of our nation. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a valuable program for my district. This has been a fund to assist communities in helping preserve open space to protect and conserve unique landscapes. The cut in funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is a cut in land conservation for Colorado.

For those who know, the 3rd Congressional District is comprised of rural communities containing millions of acres of public lands. These public lands are managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. These agencies and public lands provide many benefits for the local communities in my district. I am disappointed with the decrease in funding to these agencies in this year's Interior Appropriations Conference Report. These agencies have to maintain a difficult balance of managing our nation's public lands with budget constraints. By cutting funding to these agencies it makes it very difficult for them to maintain their current management practices and leaves our nation's public lands in jeopardy.

With that being said, this report does have some positive aspects. The funding of $5.6 billion for Indian programs is beneficial for school and hospital construction, education grants, human services programs, and law enforcement needs. These programs are essential for the Native American reservations within my district.

More often than not, in the West, the Federal Government is not just your neighbor, it is the entire neighborhood. Since most of my district cannot raise taxes, Payment in Lieu of Funding is vital. These counties with public lands within their boundaries need this funding for schools, roads, and other infrastructure needs. This program has never been fully funded, yet my counties are dependent upon this program. I hope to see this program fully funded next year.

I also want to see continued funding for the National Fire Plan and the forest health initiatives. These programs need to see increased funding due to the continued drought periods in the West and the current pine beetle epidemic. If the beetle infestations are not addressed, we will continue to see our forests decimated. These insects will continue to cause fire hazards in our nation's forests if we do not get them under control.

I urge Congress next year to fully fund these agency budgets. This is critical to the Western States and our existence.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representatives Obey and Dicks for their assistance in securing $100,000 for Montrose's City Hall Renovation Project. The City Hall building of Montrose was built in 1926 and has been well preserved throughout the years. However, as the City and County continues to grow, so too must the building in order to accommodate the needs of the people. Preserving and expanding the City Hall building in Montrose will allow us to keep a part of history alive for future generations of Colorado. Mr. Speaker once again I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. We need to sure up our VA budget so we can continue to provide critical health care services to our nation's veterans. In the future we need to restore the Land and Water Conservation funding and fully fund our agencies budgets.

Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to defend the values of rural Colorado; our farming lifestyle, our ranching communities, our jobs. DR-CAFTA, the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement goes against those values, posing a threat to the very backbone of our economy and our lifestyle.

Trade has always been a way for cultures to exchange not only goods, but also ideas and good will. I support trade with our neighbors; it is what we should be doing to help promote democracy and economic prosperity. But just because we have a trade agreement before us does not mean it is the right agreement.

DR-CAFTA is an attempt to liberalize trade between the United States and six Latin American countries. The Administration negotiated with other foreign leaders in 2004 and today the House of Representatives will vote whether to approve the agreement. Due to Fast Track Authority, however, Congress will not have an opportunity to amend the agreement--it will merely have an up-or-down vote regardless of any concerns that may be voiced. DR-CAFTA has divided many agricultural groups among the states as well as other industries, business groups and human rights organizations.

Over the last several months, I have met with a variety of groups from Colorado and around the nation about DR-CAFTA and I am sad to report there is no consensus about how this agreement will affect our nation's economy.

The promise of new markets for agricultural exports has prompted many groups to throw their weight behind DR-CAFTA, but a deeper examination of the supposed benefits vs. the actual consequences of DR-CAFTA's enactment warrants hesitation.

Our beef industry is strong and fiercely protected in our state. According to the proponents of the deal, DR-CAFTA will open up new markets and opportunities for the U.S. beef industry. But our local ranchers and beef producers will not benefit from the agreement--DR- CAFTA will only allow duty-free access for prime and choice cuts of U.S. beef, which makes little sense when 40 percent of the people in DR-CAFTA nations make $2 a day or less.

Meanwhile, DR-CAFTA is silent on the issue of imports meeting our rigorous food safety and sanitary standards, creating a challenge to the safety of our food supply.

The Colorado Farm Bureau has publicly expressed its opposition to this agreement because of the potential adverse effects it would have on agricultural sectors. In particular, the Colorado sugar industry could be devastated by increased imports of sugar from the Dominican Republic. According to estimates, the effect of lower sugar prices after increased imports could be nearly $180 million. This means the loss of nearly 150,000 sugar-industry jobs. A report prepared by the United States International Trade Commission estimates job loss in the sugar industry will be 38 times higher than the next most harmed sector.

Not only would DR-CAFTA threaten the livelihoods of thousands of US. sugar farmers and workers, but it would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Another government report reveals information condemning DR- CAFTA as a burden on taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the influx of sugar from Central American countries would push prices down so low that our own sugar farmers would be forced to forfeit government loans on their crops. These forfeitures would cost taxpayers about $50 million annually through 2015. When added to a trade deficit that has ballooned to $617 billion, claims of economic gain are hard to believe.

The trade commission study states DR-CAFTA will actually accelerate the pace at which jobs are outsourced overseas. The North America Free Trade Agreement certainly hasn't set a good precedent, with estimates of nearly 900,000 jobs lost.

In the wake of NAFTA, Trade Adjustment Assistance programs were designed to assist those who lose their jobs as a result of companies moving out of the United States. More than a decade after NAFTA, the programs receive only one-quarter of the needed funding. Despite progress made in recent years to improve the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, budget cuts have left many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program when they need it most. Workers in Grand Junction were displaced this year when their jobs were outsourced overseas; I would hate to see other communities have to deal with this problem.

How will the TAA programs keep up with DR-CAFTA's fast-paced outsourcing? And why spend millions of dollars to fix the effects of a flawed trade agreement, instead of renegotiating the entire agreement? Proponents of DR-CAFTA can't seem to defend the agreement on its own merits.

Since the solid economic reasoning isn't there, curbing illegal immigration has become the new purpose of DR-CAFTA, another argument that doesn't have the backing of facts or figures. In the wake of NAFTA, 1.3 million farmers in small to medium-size operations were forced off their land because they were unable to compete with the multinational producers. For those concerned about ``broken borders,'' think of this: The employed farmers and agriculture workers of 10 years ago have become the undocumented immigrants of today. I fear DR-CAFTA will create a new wave of illegal immigration from Latin America.

I will close as I began by reiterating my feelings about free trade. I support trade as part of a long-term strategy to grow our economy and support democracy. Economic ties with other nations help the American economy and national security. But trade agreements should provide real gains for U.S. workers and businesses. In any agreement, we must be vigilant about protecting our economic security. DR-CAFTA is a flawed agreement that needs to be renegotiated to address the concerns of our agricultural sector and the concerns of illegal immigration. Safeguards to protect American jobs and rural values must be strengthened before moving ahead with free trade in Latin America.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me this time to speak on this important bill.

I rise today to express my strong support for the Water Resource Development Act of 2005. As a new Member of Congress, I am also proud to be on a part of the committee that works in such a bipartisan way. I would like to recognize the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) the ranking member as well as the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for their strong leadership.

Today, each Member will have an opportunity to vote for a bill that is about investing in America. It is about investing in our infrastructure. And to me, it is about addressing rural Colorado's water resources needs.

WRDA will authorize new projects for the Corps of Engineers, including certain environmental restoration projects in our rivers and our lakes. I am pleased that WRDA contains two projects that are critical to water resources in my district out in Colorado.

The first project is out in the eastern part of my district and provides for water transmission infrastructure in Pueblo and Otero Counties for safe drinking water.

The second will help the water and wastewater related infrastructure for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in southeastern Colorado. Like many areas, the needs of the Third Congressional District and the county resources are stretched thin. But assistance from the Army Corps will go far.

I thank the leadership for the support of these projects. Water is the lifeblood of rural Colorado. After 5 years of delay, Congress should move quickly and put WRDA on the President's desk for signature. I urge my colleagues to vote yes for WRDA.