Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Friday, March 12, 2004, at noon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss the inclusion of health savings account in the Medicare legislation. It is one of the most exciting provisions to business owners in my district.

Health savings accounts are going to change the way that our country looks at health care. It is going to change the way that our companies buy health care. Basically a health savings account is simply an IRA. It is a medical IRA. It is a medical IRA where we are allowed to put money in tax free at any age up to $5,500 a year. An employer or the plea can make the contribution.

The nice thing about the health savings account is that it can be taken out at any age if it is used for medical purposes. So unlike other IRAs which have to be deducted or taken out of the savings accounts after you are 62\1/2\, health savings accounts can be taken out now at any age. It can be used to pay for premiums, deductibles, co-pays, prescription drugs, medical supplies or any medical treatments.

The value of this is, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to get to about 30 percent more buying power with our dollar because we make tax free contributions into the plan and we can take tax free contributions out if we pay for legitimate medical expenses.

The nice thing also is that it becomes a part of your estate. It travels with you. It is a thing that will go to the next generation if you do not use it. And so it is a way for you to prepare for your medical expenses, but if you do not use the account, then it becomes a way for your children to pay for their medical expenses.

I think that the example of my company is a very good one, Mr. Speaker. We used to have a company with 50 employees. Almost every year we gave bonuses to employees. I would tell you that if we still owned the business, that we would begin to pay those bonuses sometimes 2, 3, 4, and $5,000 a year into the health savings account. That way we could begin to have the employees use tax free money to pay for their premiums in the program, and if they used the medical services to pay for their deductible, so with tax free money.

Now, if I am paying $5,000 a year into an account for every employee, 2 or 3 years down the road, each employee would probably have 10 to $15,000 in their medical savings account, their health savings accounts. At that point, I would begin to shop for $5,000 deductible rather than $500 deductible. The resulting collapse in premiums is something that I will guarantee will be attractive to every single small business owner in America and most large businesses. Each employee is going to want to look at this as a way to begin to prepare for their medical future.

The important aspect of the health savings account is that after we establish these large accounts to be used for medical purposes for our employees, and they know it is a part of their estate, they will begin to look at their medical decisions with regard to the amount of money that is coming out of their health savings account. It is one of the things that we think will depress the demands, the arbitrary demand that sometimes goes along with medical decisions today.

We think that the health savings accounts is one of the most important pieces of legislation passed during the past year. When employers in my district hear about it, they call our office and begin to ask can they buy that now.

Most insurance companies will begin to have plans this year. Most are saying to me that they will have the plans up and running by the mid- year June of 2004. I think that in the future years, as employers and employees alike begin to combine their efforts into the health savings account, we are going to find real changes in the way that medical care is paid for in this country, and that is the beginning point of most of the reforms that are going to make medical insurance available and affordable to all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I salute this House in passing the prescription drug bill with the Medicare reforms that included the Health Savings Account.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Science may have until midnight tonight to file a report on H.R. 3752.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 5 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, March 2, 2004, at 12:30 p.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2707) to direct the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, acting through the U.S. Forest Service, to carry out a demonstration program to assess potential water savings through control of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive on forests and public lands administered by the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2707, the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act, provides for the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to carry out a demonstration program

assessing potential water savings through control of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive on forests and public lands administered by the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service.

Salt Cedar and Russian Olive are both invasive species that adversely impact the water supply, increases soil salinity, lowers the potential water that the soil can hold, and increases fire frequency. Last summer in Albuquerque, New Mexico, several hundred acres along the Rio Grande River burned, forcing about 600 people to be evacuated from their homes. This fire burned many native cottonwood and willow trees. However, one of the culprits being blamed for the escalation of the fire is the large amount of underbrush that had collected, which was mostly Salt Cedar. Without this buildup of Salt Cedar, the fire probably would not have burned as extensively or with the intensity that it did.

Regardless of what side of the aisle one is on, most can agree that controlling Salt Cedar and Russian Olive is important for water salvage, riparian restoration, salinity control, habitat restoration, and wildlife management.

Salt Cedar is widely distributed and is extensive along riparian areas in the Western United States, particularly along the Colorado, Rio Grande, the Pecos and Gila Rivers. Controlling and hopefully one day completely eradicating Salt Cedar and Russian Olive is important. As we eradicate Salt Cedar, we increase the flow of water in the streams, springs, and rivers, and restore native plants that are less water-consuming and improve habitat.

Because of the widespread nature of Salt Cedar and Russian Olive, there have been many projects to clear these trees and then to estimate how much water was saved. These increased stream flows and water restoration estimates vary widely. The high ranges from 6 to 9 acrefeet saved per year, down to a low of between zero to 1.5 acrefeet per year, per acre cleared, the last estimate based on a study done by USGS on the Pecos River in New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2707 will begin to address these problems by providing sound science and, in turn, developing and expanding on innovative approaches to control these harmful weeds.

I urge adoption of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

As the assembled body can hear, this bipartisan bill has great importance, and especially throughout the West. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for their hard work on behalf of this bill.

I have areas, Mr. Speaker, in my district which typically get around 16 inches of rainfall a year. In the last several years, we have gotten less than 6 inches in many of those areas; in some areas, as little as 2 inches in the last 12 months.

Mr. Speaker, our entire agricultural production system is at risk. We need to support our farming and ranching. We need to understand that one of the most critical things we can provide for ourselves and our Nation is a secure supply of food.

Mr. Speaker, this bill should begin to deliver more water to the agriculture community of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I accept the gentleman's offer of the rain that he has and shares so willingly, and we will address that in the next bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the most fundamental right that is guaranteed to us by the founders of our country is the right to speak freely. The Founding Fathers knew that public discourse is the backbone of a republic and must be inherent to a free society. As leaders, it is our job to raise the level of public debate in this country so that we can leave behind a legacy of sound decision enhanced by free-willed people. But we should never lower the bar of public debate to the point where baseless rhetoric is the standard.

It is our duty, Mr. Speaker, as leaders, to raise the level of public debate to a level where truth can be self-evident, where the lines of fact and fiction are clear and not blurred, and where it would be unimaginable for a public figure to blatantly deceive the American people.

We have a duty to all Americans, as leaders, to be responsible in our rhetoric, honest in our discourse, and truthful in our debate.

Mr. Speaker, I have been profoundly disappointed in some of the recent public discourse by some regarding President Bush's service to our country. On Sunday morning, Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said that President Bush was AWOL from the Alabama National Guard. Furthermore, he said that President Bush, as a member of the National Guard, never served our country in the military. In my hands right here I hold President George Bush's DD-214, which is the official separation record of any service member. Let the record show that it says right here that President Bush, our Commander in Chief, served honorably in the National Guard and received an honorable discharge.

For those of the Vietnam era, like I was, who will remember the service of National Guard troops, they understand that a fighter pilot unit was not the best place to hide in the National Guard. My own personal recollection is that one morning as a copilot on a C-130, I had been held overnight at that base that was abandoned and was being reopened at Takhli Air Force Base in Thailand. When I got up and walked outside the tent that morning there was an F-105 pilot there. He was nervous and said, ``Where am I? Twelve hours ago,'' he said, ``I was teaching school in Kansas.'' He was in the Kansas National Guard. Twelve hours later, after teaching school, he is in the Southeast Asian conflict, flying wild weasel missions over the north.

Mr. Speaker, the National Guard flying fighters was not a place to hide during the Vietnam conflict. It is next to impossible for the President to have received an honorable discharge if he was found guilty or even accused of AWOL. McAuliffe's charges are to imply that the Guard would have given an honorable discharge to someone who did not show up for service.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this accusation is reckless, it is irresponsible, and it is false. These charges are slanderous and without merit. It is outrageous for a leader of a political party and a top surrogate of the Presidential forerunner to be making this charge in our public discourse.

Especially upsetting to me is that McAuliffe believes that serving in the National Guard does not constitute serving in the military. To imply that the National Guard is not military service is to dismiss the sacrifices of tens of thousands of National Guardsmen and women who have served before and are presently serving. And it is a slap in the face to their service and their families.

National Guardsmen in World War II landed at Omaha Beach. The New Mexico National Guard served in the Pacific, and still today we honor those members who survived the Bataan Death March, who were members of the National Guard in New Mexico.

Currently there are more than 193,000 National Guard members and Reservists currently serving our country in the war on terror. About 40 percent of the soldiers in Iraq are Guard and Reserve. In my district alone I have more than 1,500 National Guardsmen and women and Reservists currently serving on Active Duty.

And, Mr. Speaker, it would be a cold day in July in New Mexico before I would let anyone say that these men and women, the people that I represent in this fine institution, do not serve our country.

I went to Iraq, Mr. Speaker, and I met personally with young men and women who are serving there. Mr. Speaker, the National Guard and Reserves are steadfast servants to our country, serving to ensure that liberty for others is achieved. Some of these men and women are on the front lines. They serve as a wedge between terrorism and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, the National Guard and Reserve soldiers are serving our country as we speak. As a member of the Air Force, I find Mr. McAuliffe's characterizations insulting and demeaning. Terry McAuliffe cheapens the National Guard by saying it is not military service. His baseless insinuations diminish the National Guard as an institution. He owes an apology to the men and women in the National Guard and Reserve uniforms who are serving our country and protecting their fellow Americans.

Mr. McAuliffe's comments represent the worst of election year politics. It must be a sad day to be a member of the political party whose leader publicly denounces, degrades, and dishonors the fighting force that is at this moment fighting for freedom and liberty and who have risked their lives to fight terrorism around the world.

It is a sad day, Mr. Speaker, when we allow our public debate to be laced with deception in this body and the other body. We have a duty to the American people and to future generations to raise the level of our honest public debate in this country. Let that be our legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for organizing this tribute.

The Nation has lost a leader, and New Mexico has lost a friend. Joseph Richard Skeen was born in Roswell, Chaves County, New Mexico, June 30, 1927. He was an Aggie. He attended Texas A&M University and graduated with a bachelor of science degree in 1950. He served the country honorably in the United States Navy from 1945 to 1946, and then I do not know what happened. I think he saw the light because

he joined the United States Air Force Reserve and served from 1949 to 1952. But the real light that he saw in his life was Mary Helen Jones, whom he married November 17, 1945. Their two children, Elisa Livingston, and her son, Ross; Mikell Lee Skeen and his wife, the former Gail Edwards, their two sons, Clint and Tyler, all deserve our thoughts and our prayers.

He began to serve immediately in positions throughout the State that reflected his agriculture desires and his agriculture background. He became a member of the New Mexico State Senate in 1960 and served until 1970. He served as chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party from 1962 to 1965. In 1980 he was just the second candidate to be elected on a write-in vote to the United States House of Representatives. He was elected to attend succeeding terms in Congress and did retire January 3, 2003, at the end of the 107th Congress.

He was the longest-serving Member from New Mexico to the House of Representatives, serving 22 years. Mr. Skeen lost two of the closest gubernatorial races that the State of New Mexico has ever seen in 1974 and again in 1978. Mr. Skeen's seniority, built up by his long tenure in the House of Representatives, accounted for his ranking by Roll Call Magazine in 2000 as one of the ten most powerful Members in the 435- Member U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Skeen was the first New Mexico House Member to serve on the House Committee on Appropriations and later served as chairman of two of the most powerful subcommittees that affect New Mexico, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations and the Interior Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Skeen was influential in the sponsorship, support, and passage of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, one of the premier DOE facilities in the Nation located in the 2nd District of New Mexico. Mr. Skeen was the primary sponsor of many legislative projects benefitting New Mexico State University, New Mexico Tech, Holloman Air Force Base, and White Sands Missile Range. New Mexico began to recognize its favorite son even before today. New Mexico Tech named their library after Joe Skeen. New Mexico State University named their new agriculture research building after Joe and Mary Skeen. Chaves County named their new administrative building after Joe Skeen. The State of New Mexico has named Highway 70 the Joe Skeen Highway.

Mr. Skeen was a strong supporter of rural New Mexico and all its requirements: roads, schools, medical care, electricity, and water and sewage treatment plants. He was impartial when it came to serving the people of New Mexico. He served them all. His offices in New Mexico provided critical assistance for those people who needed help with Social Security, veterans' medical care programs, immigration assistance, and a host of other government programs and services.

Joe fulfilled his ombudsman role eagerly and efficiently with the help of his capable and effective staffs in Washington, Roswell, and Las Cruces. He was tremendously respected. His friendly demeanor and quiet sense of humor seemed to disarm those folks with grudges and helped all citizens realize that by working together, we can solve the people's problems. Joe used to say, let us talk about what we can agree on and work from there.

Some of the popular quotes in New Mexico from Mr. Skeen were: ``The chances of that happening are between slim and none, and slim just left town.''

``Do not tell me about what you disagree with me on. Tell me where you and I agree, and let's work from there.''

``Before I leave this earth, I hope the Good Lord gives me the opportunity to serve as a member of the majority party in Congress.'' That opportunity came to Mr. Skeen.

About his ranch he said, ``We raise cattle for prestige, and we raise sheep for profit.''

And, finally, ``I will be forever indebted to those actions of those many citizens who stood in line until midnight to write my name in the congressional ballot. I will never forget and will work hard to make sure their views are heard in the House of Representatives.''

The people of New Mexico will never forget Mr. Skeen. He is a man of the people. The people in the 2nd District have expressed their love and concern as I traveled the district this year campaigning to replace Mr. Skeen. And as I won the office, I realized that no one can replace Mr. Skeen. I can simply fill the spot that he was in.

As I took my place in this national Congress and heard from his many friends, I realized that he was just as respected nationally as he was in the State. The State has lost a friend. The Nation has lost a leader. Joe Skeen was our friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1.

One of the important provisions in this bill is reimbursement for States and counties that are required to treat illegal immigrants through the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. This unfunded mandate is breaking the hospitals in my district.

As a border State, we constantly incur costs on our counties that are mandated by the Federal Government but never reimbursed. By Federal law, hospitals must treat any person, regardless of citizenship, in need of medical attention. If the person is a United States citizen, Medicare or Medicaid pays for the treatment, but there is no reimbursement for illegal immigrants. Border hospitals are caving under these costs of providing care daily for illegal immigrants who have no insurance and no ability to pay.

For example, Luna County in my district is often expected to pay for Mexican citizens to be picked up at the border, taken to a hospital and treated, and then returned to the border. Taxpayers are footing the bill for indigent care. This provision ensures that counties and States will receive the money in return for the services the Federal Government requires them to provide.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of entering into the Record how I would have voted on issues before the House on which I was unavailable to vote on Wednesday, October 29; Thursday, October 30; and Friday, October 31.

On Wednesday, October 29, on rollcall No. 577, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 578, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 579, I would have voted ``yes.''

On Thursday, October 30, on rollcall No. 580, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 581, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 582, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 583, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 584, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 585, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 586, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 587, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 588, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 589, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 590, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 591, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 592, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 593, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 594, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 595, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 596, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 597, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 598, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 599, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 600, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall No. 601, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, the reason for my absence and for not voting on these important issues was because I was a member of a congressional delegation that went to Iraq to visit our troops and to personally observe conditions there.

We were able to visit our troops in Landstuhl, Germany, who have been injured bringing freedom to Iraq. We saw the excellent job our forces are doing, simultaneously setting up a free and fair democracy while bringing evildoers to justice and establishing peace in Iraq. We saw the people working together regardless of ethnicity or religion, to restore businesses and hope to a country formerly under control of despots. Because of our troops and the freedom they are establishing in Iraq, the people there have hope, which they have not had since Saddam Hussein became dictator.

Mr. Speaker, while the business before this House is important, we must also realize that the foundation for all of our actions in this Chamber is the freedoms granted to us in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our presence in Iraq is allowing the Iraqi people to, for the first time, establish a Constitution where the Iraqis will have the freedom to vote for a representative government, where the rule of law will prevail, where citizens will not fear for their lives, their property or their freedom. Let us not forget why we are able to participate in this body, and let us not deny that freedom to Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for talking about this critical issue in front of this body.

I grew up in New Mexico and on our vacations we would drive to Cloudcroft, New Mexico. From the early 1950s, I noticed that there was a place there of thousands of acres where no tree grew. It was in the middle of pine forests in southern New Mexico, and it was always odd to me. It was only after beginning to work in the legislature and learning what makes a forest grow and not grow that I realized that was a forest fire that had occurred in the middle part of the century, and over 50 years later, the soil was still sterile from the effects of that fire.

So when my constituents ask me what is a healthy forest, I tell them one that is natural, one that grows up the way that conditions would permit. In New Mexico, a healthy forest, generally, historically, pictures tell us, had about 25 to 50 trees per acre. I like to ask schoolchildren when I go around, how many trees per acre are in New Mexico forests now? On average, we have over 1,500 trees per acre. The trees do not get the nutrients that they need, they do not get the water they need. In attempting to get the sunlight they need, the small-diameter trees grow to 50, 75 and 100 feet, matching the height of the mature trees. Then, as has been described, as a fire starts, it uses the small diameter as kindling to get the fire burning across the top of the entire forest, the crown fires burning just the top of the trees, burning just the piece that will kill it, and then the healthy, good hardwood stands rotting, waiting to just become a part of the soil, sometimes waiting years to decay.

Another problem with an unhealthy forest is that they soak up water, and in New Mexico which is an arid State which desperately needs water, and we are in the fifth year of a drought, if each tree consumes only one gallon per day, the estimates are in New Mexico, we have over a billion too many trees, that is 1 billion gallons a day. The actual estimates are much higher, Madam Speaker, and that trees will probably use 100 gallons a day. And in an arid State where water is life, where water is growth, where water is our future, we are mismanaging our forests into unhealthy situations that are going to burn and destroy this national treasure and this natural resource, that rob our cities of the water they need for growth and for the population, all because extremists in this society say we would rather watch them burn than to cut one single tree.

There are extremists in this city who say no State, except South Dakota, will be allowed to cut trees without the NEPA studies that are required, no state but South Dakota, a provision that was snuck in in the middle of the night over 3 years ago in an omnibus bill. The rest of the States want the same permission to do commonsense thinning to create a healthy forest. It is not a question of if our forests are going to burn, Madam Speaker, it is a question of when our forests are going to burn.

I flew this year between two towns in western New Mexico, and I flew over 200,000 acres with just the stubs of smouldering trees standing. The entire 200,000 acres was killed in just a short period of time. The unreasonable, extreme environmentalists who will block every attempt to do commonsense thinning which will create our healthy forests should be ashamed. And those special interest people who in this city who will give one State permission to do the commonsense practices of good forest management should unlock the doors and allow the rest of us to have access to the same commonsense approach to managing our forests, to managing our forests to become healthy forests instead of the death traps they are now.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) for leading this important discussion.

Madam Speaker, I began these economic discussions in my district early in my term. About February or March we began to talk about the potential tax cut. And good, well-meaning people ask why would we give a tax cut in the face of deficits. And it is a fair question. It is one that I addressed at the time, and it is one that is worth revisiting the answers.

First of all, to know why we would approach a deficit situation offering a tax cut, one needs to understand the problem with our economy. Our economy first received its first shock back in March of 2000 when the dot-com collapse occurred. Everyone will recall that those dot-com stocks had escalated from no value to some selling at $200 and $300 per share. They had no revenue. They had no product. They had no sales. They just had optimism and euphoria about the potential.

It was right and necessary that the price of those stocks collapsed down because it was unwarranted to have such a high price. But while the prices were up, people were cashing in their stock and the capital gains created the illusion of an economy that had grown and had improved.

Now, what that did is it caused us all in the Federal Government and in almost every State government to reorient our spending for those perceived surpluses. Now, when the dot-com collapse occurred, it took us back to about the 3 percent growth rate which we had experienced.

So the economy was basically at the same point before and after the dot-com ramp up, but we had reoriented our spending patterns at both State and national levels. State began to have difficulties balancing their budgets. The Federal Government began to run in a deficit situation. We were just about to come out from underneath that problem when 9-11 hit. That was a $2 trillion problem, $2 trillion taken out of the lives of people, the actual loss of lives, also the economic impact that it had on the lives of people.

After 9-11 we were still just about to come out of the recession when the companies that under President Clinton's term had cooked the books and no one had called the bluff, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, those stocks began to collapse under this President. Someone was willing to take those problems into account. And at that time, then, the consumers lost confidence in the stock market and began to pull their money out. That is where our problem arrived at this year.

So when I looked at the potential, we had one of two choices, one to cut spending like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) said, a notion that was rejected outright by the Democrats; the other choice that we had was to reinvest.

My wife and I have owned a business for the last 14 years. We hate debt. Almost always we are out of debt. We operate simply on cash; but occasionally when it is time to expand, we will take on additional debt. We create an expansion. We grow the size of the company. We pay the debt off and we are back on solid ground. That is the way the tax cut was.

We are taking some of the money back, putting it into the pockets of the

people, offering incentives to businesses in order that they might grow.

People ask, exactly how does it work? I will tell you, in my district, in my hometown there is a small manufacturer. They make oil field equipment that sells for about $750,000 per unit. Before the tax cut, they were completely out of back orders. They were just at the point of laying off people. They were producing their last piece of equipment that had been ordered.

The day the President signed the bill, they got more back orders in one day than they had gotten the previous entire life of their company. They went to 2 years' worth of back orders. They brought on new people. For each new unit that was produced, they hired four people and sometimes five.

The idea that you must know what you are trying to achieve from any set of taxes that you take is really obvious here. We were taking somewhat of a chance to go out and do the tax decreases, but it is working out the way that economists have said it would work out.

Our State, New Mexico, is leading the Nation, number two in job growth because our State legislature this year gave a tax cut, the Democrat Governor said we all know it, tax cuts cause jobs, tax cuts cause economic growth. But it also has taken some discipline. I do not know how many people are aware of it, but as we look at the corporate scandals, the President and the Justice Department have taken a leadership role. There are seven executives currently awaiting trial. There are four more who are already spending time in jail, including the ex-treasurer from Enron. The founder of ImClone is spending 7 years in jail, and 12 former executives from HealthSouth. The American people respond when government acts properly, when they request and require accountability on the part of not only their elected officials but also those people in business leadership positions.

So I salute the President in his plan for the economic recovery for this country. I salute the President in his willingness to ensure discipline in our corporate executives. I salute the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) for hosting this discussion tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Hank Mason of Los Lunas, New Mexico for his distinguished service to our country during the Vietnam War. Mr. Mason is a great American, and recognition for his service to our country is long overdue. I thank him for his commitment to freedom and the sacrifices he endured while serving in Vietnam.

Mason earned, but never received, several war and service medals from the United States Army for his 3 years of service, including a tour in Vietnam. Mason says he has made many attempts for more than 3 decades to receive the medals that were due to him, with no avail. On Saturday, October 25, 2003, I was proud to present Mr. Mason with the military service medals he has been waiting for more than 34 years.

We must always recognize the men and women of our Armed Forces who have valiantly defended our American values throughout our Nation's history. These remarkable individuals have helped to make America secure and have advanced the cause of freedom worldwide. By answering the call of duty, our veterans have risked their lives to protect their fellow countrymen. Individuals like Hank Mason have inspired our Nation with their courage, patriotism and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bob Carter for receiving the 2003 Governor's New Mexico Distinguished Public Service Award. To know Bob Carter is to respect him. He is a public servant, a leader, a statesman and a friend.

Bob and his wife, Glenda, moved to Lovington, New Mexico in 1971 and have been an instrumental part of the community. He held the job of Lovington economic development director before becoming assistant city manager, and then city manager. In 1992, Bob was named citizen of the year by both the Board of Realtors and the Lovington Chamber of Commerce.

Bob now works for the good people of Southern New Mexico as the District Outreach Director in my office. He travels the entire district listening to the concerns and the visions of my constituents. Thanks to his background and expertise in city government, he works especially hard to facilitate economic development opportunities in Southern New Mexico.

Bob has left his trademark on our communities for his love of God, family, state and country. I thank him for his services and for his dedication to making life better for the people of Southern New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in recognizing and congratulating Bob Carter, a remarkable man who has selflessly served his community and fellowman. God Bless him and his family.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 362) recognizing the importance and contributions of sportsmen to American society, supporting the traditions and values of sportsmen, and recognizing the many economic benefits associated with outdoor sporting activities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this bipartisan resolution to recognize the valuable contributions of the 38 million sportsmen in the United States. Hunting, fishing and trapping is woven into the fabric of our cultural heritage. There have been many notable hunters and fishermen throughout our history, including the father of the National Wildlife System, President Theodore Roosevelt; the founder of the Audubon Society, John James Audubon; and the great literary writer, Ernest Hemingway.

Today's sportsmen contribute more than $70 billion annually to our economy with a positive ripple effect amounting to $179 billion. Both hunters and fishermen voluntarily pay Federal excise taxes on guns, rods, reels, ammunition and outdoor equipment. In fact, since 1937, sportsmen have contributed billions of dollars through the Pittman- Robertson Act and the Dingell-Johnson Act for the benefit of all fish and wildlife species.

Mr. Speaker, autumn is rapidly approaching, and soon 28 million Americans will take to the woods and streams to enjoy nature, relax and reaffirm their connection to the land. These sportsmen are the true environmentalists who have sacrificed time, money, and labor to improve habitat throughout the Nation. Let there be no mistake, without fishermen and hunters, there would be no Canadian geese, ducks, striped bass, rainbow trout or wild turkeys because there would be no money to maintain the habitat which is essential to the survival of these species.

All of us have fishermen and hunters in our districts. This resolution is important for them and for the millions who enjoy hiking, bird watching, and wildlife photography. Without the dollars and leadership provided by sportsmen, there would be no fish or wildlife to enjoy.

I want to compliment the sponsors of this resolution, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for their leadership on behalf of sportsmen in this country. This resolution, which has been endorsed by 44 hunting and conservation groups, will recognize the importance of sportsmen, conservation programs, outdoor sporting activities, and the importance of teaching the traditions of hunting and fishing.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on House Resolution 362.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.