Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this supplemental funding is one of the most important bills that Congress will be considering this year, and I am very disappointed that the Democrat leadership has mandated that this bill come to the floor under a closed rule.

I have heard the Democrats say that this is not a perfect rule. It is perfectly wrong; that is what it is.

What does a closed rule mean? It means voices will not be heard. It means ideas will be silenced. A closed rule means that no amendments will be allowed to the bill, that no alternative plan to fully fund the troops will be allowed.

I only have 2 minutes to discuss this, not enough time to explain to the American people how this puts our troops at risk or question why the Speaker believes she has the right to micromanage the war in Iraq.

We spent a whole week debating the nonbinding resolution on Iraq, and now we have only 4 hours of how to best fund and support our troops. It is not enough time to explain title IX, where the language of the bill prevents our troops from receiving reinforcements or replacements. It is not enough time to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the supplemental will fulfill the goals of al Qaeda's leader al-Zawahiri. It is not enough time to show the American people how this supplemental replaces the Iraqi National Congress by imposing on their government demands, demands to change their Constitution, demands to change their laws.

This is an unfair rule that represents broken promises for a more open Congress made by the Speaker. This is a rule that should be defeated.

I am going to vote ``no'' on this, and I encourage my colleagues to also vote ``no'' on this rule. It is an unfair bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a terrible bill. It is only allowed 4 hours of debate. We could have had more debate, but according to the Congress Daily P.M., the Speaker of the House is in New York City tonight at a fund-raiser. So we could have spent the time debating tonight. Instead, we are waiting until tomorrow and the time is limited.

Our soldiers are in need of our support, and they have sacrificed greatly and given their support to us, and they have kept us safe. We have been safe since September 11, 2001, but instead of providing only what the troops need in this bill, it funds domestic spending with $24 billion.

In addition in Title IX of this bill, the language will effectively deny our troop reinforcements or replacements. The language says that no unit may be deployed without being fully mission-capable. If this language were law during World War I, none of the troops would have been fully mission-capable, and we could not have deployed our troops to rescue Europe, and the world would be a very different place.

If this language had been law during World War II, our troops would not be fully mission-capable, and they would not have been available for the victories in D-Day or Iwo Jima, and the world would have been a very different place.

If this language were law during the Korean War, our troops would not have been able to leave the country because they were never fully mission-capable. They were using broken-down World War II equipment, and if they had not gone to rescue the South Koreans, the world would be a different place.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not let our troops in Iraq receive the reinforcements and replacements they need, and let me tell you why.

To be fully mission-capable, there are three areas of judgment: personnel, equipment and training. Personnel, we can be fully mission- capable. We have the best soldiers in the world, and our units have the right number of people.

Training is a little more subjective. Most people say that they would be ready to be fully mission-capable. However, they do not train on the very same equipment that they use in the field. So there is some contention whether they are actually fully mission-capable or not. Some would say they are not, but definitely in the area of equipment we are not fully mission-capable. The reason: We take the best equipment we have and we put it in the field to protect or troops. We know it is the right thing to do, but our troops do not train on the same equipment they operate in the field. In fact, they could not leave the United States under this language. Right now, they go to Kuwait and they train on equipment. It is not the same equipment but it's close, it is not the same level of protection that they have when they get in field in Iraq. So they will never be fully mission-capable.

According to the Congress Daily A.M. this morning said Pentagon leaders have repeatedly told Capitol Hill they need additional war funds by the end of April. If they do not receive those funds by April, it will delay repairs, would exacerbate the readiness problem facing nondeployable units which already have equipment shortfalls. In other word, they would not be fully mission-capable, and the results of that, of not being fully mission-capable, is that our troops cannot receive the reinforcements and they cannot receive replacements. Our troops will be stuck in Iraq. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

The language in this bill ties the hands of our military, and it says that none of the troops that are in America today will ever have the ability to leave this country because they cannot be ``fully mission- capable.'' The Title IX language must be struck from the bill because it is very clear that if we do not strike the language, we cannot get any reinforcements out of the country, we cannot get any replacements out of the country, and therefore, our troops will be stuck in Iraq.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the additional time.

Madam Speaker, on March 6, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 121 and 122.

Rollcall vote No. 121 was final passage of H. Res. 98. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 122 was on final passage of H. Res. 149. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, on March 5, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 119 and 120.

Rollcall vote No. 119 was final passage of H.R. 995. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 120 was on final passage of H.R. 497. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Chairman, I stand in opposition to the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 800, and ask my fellow colleagues to join with me in supporting every worker's right to a secret ballot. I am appalled that this House would bring forth legislation that eliminates free speech and contradicts our system of democracy. H.R. 800 goes against the principles hard-working Americans stand for: openness, fairness, and freedom.

The United States Congress is charged with upholding the Constitution, not undermining it.

I have the honor of representing the Fourth District of Kansas, which includes Wichita and is the air capital of the world--home to Cessna, Hawker-Beech, Bombardier LearJet, the Boeing Company, Spirit Aerosystems, and scores of small aviation machine shops and supplies. It is a leading center of aviation research, training, manufacturing and modification.

During my time in Congress, I have had the privilege to work closely with the machinist and engineer union members on common goals and concerns--from the extension of jobless benefits to securing the continuation of the E-4B modification program, which will support many union jobs in south-central Kansas. I know the value that unions bring to workers, their families, and a community. I will continue to fight for my district, and support every Wichita worker.

H.R. 800, which some have aptly termed the ``worker intimidation act,'' would limit the choices of employees in Kansas. This legislation would replace the fair, time-honored, government-sponsored secret ballot elections with an inherently corruptible card signing system. Employees should have the right to decide on unionization in a non- coercive environment. I am shocked and dismayed that the Democrat majority would act so recklessly as to remove the fundamental and basic labor rights of free choice and free election from our hard-working men and women. Every worker has a fundamental right to a secret ballot. Congress does not have a right to take that away.

In the card-check system proposed in this bill, workers would be publicly pressured--before friends, co-workers and union organizers--to sign a card. Once labor union bosses get a simple majority of employee- signed cards, the union would be formed. There is no ballot and no democratic system. Almost one-half of all employees would never be given a chance to say whether they want to join a union. H.R. 800 takes away their voice.

Currently, 28 States do not have ``right-to-work'' laws; meaning that once union organizers have a simple majority of check-cards, all employees, without a right to vote or express their views, would be forced to pay union dues. Then, on top of this insult, newly unionized members would not be guaranteed the right to vote on the new union contract.

H.R. 800 also strikes our first amendment right to freedom of speech. This legislation would bar employers from telling their employees about the true consequences of unionization. It is unconscionable that Congress would violate the first amendment and limit the access to information by employees. Some Democrats in this House believe that workers are not capable of making a decision when presented all the facts. Every worker should be insulted by the underlying premise of this legislation.

At this point, if anyone still questions whether H.R. 800 would help or hurt workers, let me point out that this legislation would make it illegal for employers to give increases of pay or benefits during the card-check process. Proponents of the legislation say that increased benefits could influence the process. However, let me be on the record as saying that I will always support a company's right to increase the pay and benefits of its employees. A couple weeks ago, this House voted to increase the minimum wage for the first time in 10 years--an increase which I support. However, to now vote to ban a company from increasing wages on its own accord is hypocritical. I have yet to find one worker who did not want a pay raise.

In addition to restricting pay raises, this legislation will have a dramatic and dangerous impact on jobs across this Nation. Small business owners create up to 80 percent of all new jobs in this country. This legislation will limit the growth of small businesses and drive these good paying jobs overseas. Many in the Democrat party pay lip-service to wanting to stop the exodus of American jobs overseas, but, if enacted, H.R. 800 will actually encourage employers to relocate their businesses.

Giving employees less choice, killing the right to a secret ballot, keeping employees from critical information, making it illegal to provide increased benefits, driving jobs overseas. Does this sound like the United States of America? These are the real results of this ill- conceived, politically motivated bill.

This begs the question, why would labor unions and their allies push for such an antiworker and undemocratic bill? The official reason is that because employers are illegally coercing employees to not join a union; that union organizers are illegally fired or punished. Regrettably this activity has taken place to some degree. In 2005, there were 62 cases in which companies had illegally fired a worker for union organizing activities--62. In a country of 140 million workers. And, as I said, this is already illegal. Employers should be, and are, held responsible for all illegal activities. However, a few bad actors should not result in the destruction of a cornerstone of our Nation's union laws.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to recognize and say farewell to an outstanding United States Air Force Reserve senior noncommissioned officer, Chief Master Sergeant Jackson A. Winsett, upon his retirement from Air Force Reserve after more than 28 years of honorable service.

Throughout his career, Chief Master Sergeant Winsett served with distinction, and it is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments and to commend him for the superb service he has provided the Air Force Reserve and our Nation.

Chief Master Sergeant Winsett is a native of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and currently lives in Lenexa, Kansas. He entered the United States Army in October 1966.

His assignments took him to the Republic of Vietnam and the Federal Republic of Germany where he served his Nation as an administrative and personnel assistant. In September 1969, Chief Master Sergeant Winsett was honorably discharged from the United States Army as a Sergeant E-5.

Chief Master Sergeant Winsett joined the United States Air Force Reserve in October 1981 as an administrative specialist in the 442nd Fighter Wing, Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base, Missouri. During his tenure with this organization, he served in numerous positions, including a 2-year assignment as the consolidated base personnel office career adviser, 2 years as the unit career adviser for the 442nd Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, 4 years as the first sergeant for the 442nd Combat Support Group, 7 years as the first sergeant for the 442nd Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, 2 years as the senior enlisted adviser for the 442nd Fighter Wing, and 2 years as the command chief master sergeant for the 442nd Fighter Wing.

Chief Master Sergeant Winsett applied for and was selected in July 2000 to be the command chief master sergeant for headquarters, 10th Air Force, at Naval Air Station, Joint Reserve Base, Fort Worth, Texas.

During this assignment, which increased in scope and responsibility, Chief Winsett was responsible for providing advice on personnel matters concerning the welfare, effective use, and progress of the 10,000- member enlisted force to the 10th Air Force Command.

Chief Master Sergeant Winsett most recently served as the command chief master sergeant at headquarters, Air Force Reserve Command Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, where he continued his personal tradition of excellence, service and integrity. Through frequent communications, Chief Winsett maintained liaison between the commander of the United States Air Force Reserve Command and the 60,000-plus member enlisted force and key staff members.

He communicated to the commander problems and solutions, concerns, morale and attitude of the enlisted force, and ensured the commander's policies were known and understood by them.

Additionally, Chief Master Sergeant Winsett evaluated the quality of noncommissioned officer leadership, management and supervision. He monitored compliance with various Air Force instructions, including conduct and performance standards. Within his functional area, he issued directives and other guidance ensuring policy compliance.

During his incredible career, Chief Master Sergeant Winsett has served the United States Air Force Reserve and our great Nation with excellence and distinction. He provided exemplary leadership to the best trained and best prepared enlisted citizen-airmen force in the history of the United States.

Chief Master Sergeant Winsett is a model of leadership and a living example of our military's dedication to our safety and security entrusted to them by each of us.

Chief Master Sergeant Winsett will retire from the United States Air Force Reserve on March 7, 2007, after 28 years and 3 months of dedicated service. On behalf of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I wish Chief Master Sergeant Winsett the very best. Congratulations on completion of an outstanding and successful career.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the brave men and women in our military. Thank you, and thank you to the families who have made so many sacrifices.

Today we are taking the first step towards defeat. No one likes where we are today, but our goal should be success, not to accept the defeat the Democrats are leading us towards.

I am very disappointed that the new Democrat leadership will not allow a true debate on what should be our focus today: what can we do to help achieve success in Iraq, and what metrics should we use to measure that success. That is the debate we should be having on the floor this week. Our military, our children, our fellow citizens, and the people of Iraq deserve nothing less.

Instead, this Democrat leadership is telling the brave men and women who serve in our military that their efforts have not been good enough and that they do not think they deserve the tools to fight this war.

We've been safe in the United States since September 11, 2001. But that is only because the Bush Administration and Congress and our brave troops took the fight to the terrorists. But it is by no means over. The United States remains a Nation at war. It's hard for Americans who do not have loved ones in the military to remember that sometimes.

We are not safe simply because we have not seen an attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. We are safer today because of the professionals of the worldwide network of intelligence, military and law enforcement officials who continue to pressure and strike al-Qaeda and its followers.

September 11, 2001 showed us the danger of Islamic terrorism. It also taught us that we can't wait for them to come to us. We have to go to the root cause of terrorism and sever the root.

We are blessed with an outstanding military that has taken the battle to the enemy. It is very important that we take the fight to them in places where fortunately every American carries a gun--rather than on the streets of New York, Washington or Wichita, KS. And make no mistake, Iraq is where the terrorists have to come to fight.

Our most important duty as Members of Congress is to protect our Nation from ever experiencing the lesson of 9/11 again. For that reason, we must continue to focus on improving our national security, our homeland security and our intelligence systems. Today's resolution does the opposite and sends the exact message the enemy wants to hear.

Our enemy is not going away. The war in Iraq is a tough one, as is the overall Global War on Terror, GWOT. That is what the terrorist have promised in their letter, written by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Just because it is tough does not mean that it is not worthwhile. The Democrat approach is dangerous and naive. We cannot put our heads back in the sands. Our enemies are ready to strike. Leaving Iraq will not mean the end to our troubles or to our enemy's plans.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, has stated again and again that Iraq is the centerpiece of Al Qaeda's strategy to establish dominance in the Middle East and beyond. A July 9, 2005 letter from al-Zawahiri listed al Qaeda's objectives in Iraq. Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle what those objectives are:

1. Expel Americans from Iraq.

2. Establish an al Qaeda ``emirate'' in Iraq.

3. Extend a jihad from Iraq to secular states neighboring Iraq.

4. Clash with Israel.

Senator Feingold and many other Democrats can't wait to pull out of Iraq and have introduced legislation to that effect. While I would like nothing more than to see our men and women home safely, I know that pulling out now would be a disaster for U.S. security and would only mean that those men and women would have to go back to the Middle East to fight a stronger, recharged enemy. Because the enemy knows that all he has to do is make life difficult for a couple of years and the United States will back down in retreat.

In this resolution, where is the Democrat plan for success, where is their plan to fight terrorism? What is the Democrat plan to stop al Qaeda from turning Iraq into a base of operations for worldwide terrorism if we leave? What is the plan to deal with Iran, who has already targeted the Shia majority, when they fund allies against Israel, America, you and me? These are the questions the American people need answers to.

Unfortunately, we have seen how the Democrats respond to terrorism, to those whose stated goal is to kill Americans and destroy our Nation. Their response is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. September 11, 2001 was not the first time this enemy attacked us--there were numerous attacks preceding that horrible day--the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the 1998 bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. Our enemies are looking for signs that we will resume that attitude of ignorance. Today my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are telling our enemies that the United States does not have the wherewithal to fight the Global War on Terror. In fact, today's resolution will carry no weight--except with our enemies.

Let me put this war in perspective. On June 6th, 1944, General Dwight David Eisenhower sent 156,000 allied troops ashore in Normandy in the D-Day invasion. That is about 7,000 more troops than we will have in Iraq after the surge.

Now, Eisenhower was coming off of three pretty rough years in North Africa. The campaign there displayed the serious shortcomings in the Allies' ability to diplomatically engage the Vichy French, establish and maintain lines of communication and hold terrain in key locations. The Allied Forces were forced to retreat from engagements with the Germans in battles like the Kasserine Pass.

What if Congress, after assessing the difficulties in the North Africa Campaign, called on President Roosevelt to tie Eisenhower's hands? What if they asked Ike to pare back the D-Day landing party because it was just too risky?

We didn't have that problem because in 1944 Congress, like President Roosevelt, knew that we were fighting to secure the future of the world. After reading this resolution, I am convinced that the Democrats have yet to grasp the importance of today's struggle.

What will happen if we pull out now? What will the Middle East look like?

Iraq will become utter chaos, violence will only increase and terrorists will have an unchallenged base of operations. It is likely that Shia extremists would dominate Iraq. Iran is eager for this to happen so that it can control Iraq. This is extremely worrisome. President Bush was correct when he labeled Iran one of the axes of evil. We know that Iran is gaining

the capabilities to become a nuclear power. Iran is also collaborating with many radical Islamist groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas. With Iraq also under its thumb if the U.S. pulls out, this could cause a regional war that threatens Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is hard to see how the U.S. could avoid being drawn into such a conflict. This would put our troops in an even graver situation than they are today, with less hope for success. It also will reverberate through our economy at home, with skyrocketing oil prices.

The Democrats need to understand the reverberations of defeat.

House Republicans take our role in Iraq seriously, and we want to see success. Our leadership has called on the Speaker to appoint a bipartisan select oversight committee to monitor and implement the effectiveness of the President's new strategy. Instead of taking this responsible suggestion, what is their response? Spending a week on a do-nothing resolution to embarrass the President and encourage our enemies. Even in the majority, they are still more comfortable with being the party of ``no'' rather than the party that governs.

Republicans on the other hand have a plan, because we know that success in Iraq means a safer, more secure America. We have proposed strategic benchmarks to measure our effectiveness. We are prepared to work with the Democrats to construct a plan for success in Iraq. The Democrat leadership will not allow us to present our plan this week because they do not wish to see success in Iraq, they want to pull out despite its effects on Iraq and the United States. We need to support our military, our new Secretary of Defense, and our Commander-in-Chief as they work to achieve success in Iraq and the Global War on Terror.

I leave you with a question a constituent asked me recently: If the Democrats get their wish and we pull out of Iraq without attempting to achieve victory, what happens the next day? Unfortunately, we know that answer because our enemies have made it clear: they bring the fight to the United States.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support H. Con. Res. 5, a resolution supporting ``Hire a Veteran Week.'' Supporting our troops should not be confined just to the battlefield; supporting our troops extends beyond their time in active duty. The liberties we enjoy today were earned through the bravery and sacrifice of patriotic Americans. America must never turn her back on her veterans.

Historically, unemployment of veterans is higher than in the civilian populations. This is a national tragedy. Veterans are hard-working, self-sacrificing patriots. Unfortunately, many employers simply do not understand the skills, capabilities, and tremendous value that veterans bring to any workplace. Through efforts such as ``Hire a Veteran Week,'' coupled with those of the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs and Labor, Veteran Service Organizations, and various non- profit groups, we will bring attention to the benefit of hiring veterans.

I am very pleased to see that the unemployment rate for veterans has fallen by one-third since 2005. Although the unemployment rate is still higher than the civilian population, these new numbers are clear evidence that progress is being made. As with most progress, we must not be content to rest on past accomplishments. I will not be happy until every veteran who wants to work is able to make a good living for themselves and their families.

To those companies that have hired a veteran, I say, ``thank you.'' I have never met a business owner who has regretted hiring a veteran, and appreciate their willingness to understand the value of our veterans and make room for them in their organization.

While I say it all the time, I can never say it enough. ``Thank you'' to the men and women of our Armed Forces for guaranteeing freedom for all Americans. May God bless you, and may God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Bush sent us his budget request for Fiscal Year 2008. This request includes his spending priorities for each federal agency.

I applaud his efforts to balance the budget by the end of the decade, and to do so without raising taxes on American families. I also applaud his recent efforts to reduce the burden of agency guidance documents through the Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices that was published on January 25th.

In addition to federal regulations, which are burdensome enough, the past decade has seen an explosion in ``guidance documents'' that are not legislated but have the same effect as regulation on American employers and can stifle their growth. As OMB itself noted:

The phenomenon we see in this case is familiar. Congress

passes a broadly worded statute. The agency follows with

regulations containing broad language, open-ended phrases,

ambiguous standards and the like. Then as years pass, the

agency issues circulars or guidance or memoranda, explaining,

interpreting, defining and often expanding the commands in

regulations. One guidance document may yield another and then

another and so on. Several words in a regulation may spawn

hundreds of pages of text as the agency offers more and more

detail regarding what its regulations demand of regulated

entities. Law is made, without notice and comment, without

public participation, and without publication in the Federal

Register or the Code of Federal Regulations.

In this spirit, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to examine the agency budget requests not only with regard to fiscal matters but also with regards to how spending priorities affect our economic competitiveness.

Taxpayer dollars should be used to benefit the public good. Unfortunately, we have seen over and over again that--often with good intention--agencies instead use taxpayer money to impose and enforce regulations that literally strangle businesses and impede job growth.

Regulation imposes its heaviest burden on small and medium sized businesses because it is harder for them to handle the necessary overhead costs of paperwork, staff time and attorney and accountant fees.

Richard Vedder, an economist at the Center for the Study of American Business, finds that federal regulations cause $1.3 trillion in economic output to be lost each year. This is roughly equivalent to the entire economic output of the mid-Atlantic region.

I have to imagine that processing this paperwork also requires a lot of agency time and reduces their ability to clean up the environment, provide better health care, improve labor conditions, make our transport systems more efficient, etc. If the government instead worked with employers to create a better work environment and a cleaner and safer nation, both sides could better accomplish their goals. The real winner would be the American people.

As we go through the budget and appropriations process, I hope that we do so with an eye towards keeping our nation economically competitive now and in the future. We should look for ways in which the government can better work with employers, and also for the best programs to fund to train our children and children's children for the 21st Century economy.

Madam Speaker, today's Wall Street Journal ran an editorial on the benefits of trade agreements. It is clear that additional trade agreements are an essential part of our economic future if we want high-quality, high-paying jobs for ourselves and our children.

Several years ago, I formed the Economic Competitive Caucus to reveal the barriers, created by Congress, that keep us from bringing jobs back to America.

Lack of free trade agreements is one of those barriers, and it is clear that from the information from the U.S. Trade Representative's office that our trade has increased 26 percent with 10 of the countries that we signed trade agreements with since 2001, compared with the rest of the world, which has only grown by 13 percent. This success has meant more union jobs at U.S. manufacturers like Caterpillar, Boeing, and Cessna.

Madam Speaker, I believe America would have a stronger economy and more high-quality, high-paying jobs, including more union jobs, if Congress had approved 40 trade pacts like the Chilean Government has over the past 15 years.

Madam Speaker, let us tear down the trade barriers for American working families.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill being considered before the House today that would raise taxes on the energy industry, encourage American jobs to go overseas and cause us to become more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas. H.R. 6 can only make energy more expensive for the American people. And I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this anti-manufacturing bill.

Raising taxes on a legitimate American manufacturing industry, regardless of its size or profitability, is not good for our economy or for creating and retaining more domestic jobs. H.R. 6 would siphon billions of dollars out of the energy economy that otherwise could have been reinvested into jobs and domestic energy projects.

In the past few years when fuel prices skyrocketed, I heard regularly from my constituents who were experiencing financial hardship due to these high energy costs. Farmers and ranchers were stuck with rising energy bills, small businesses were forced to raise prices for their products and services and American families were forced to spend more of their disposable income on gasoline.

Rather that focusing on ways to continue lowering energy costs, the Democrats are intent on doing precisely the opposite. Raising taxes on the American manufacturing industry that produces our oil and gas is not the way to help lower energy costs for consumers.

Not only could H.R. 6 lead to higher gasoline prices by raising taxes, but it could also bring about more expensive natural gas. Higher natural gas prices are a very real possibility if natural gas investment, exploration and production fall. Americans already pay more for

natural gas than any other country in the world. Higher natural gas will not just be an inconvenience; it will cost more American jobs.

Because we pay as much as 600 percent more for natural gas than other countries, American businesses are often at a competitive disadvantage when trying to compete with foreign businesses.

As elected officials sent to Washington to represent the interests of our constituents, we cannot afford to pass legislation that harms jobs and raises the cost of doing business for domestic manufacturers of energy. Singling out one domestic industry and excluding it from manufacturing tax breaks that other manufacturers are entitled to use is nothing more than pandering by the Democrats for political gain.

Instead of voting to raise taxes on energy manufactures, we should instead be considering proposals today that would encourage more domestic energy, which in turn would produce more American jobs and would boost our economy. We should be voting on legislation that would help America increase its refining capacity. We should be making it easier for energy companies to invest in American jobs by exploring for new sources of domestic oil and natural gas. Instead, we are voting on a Democrat energy bill that will encourage more dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas.

This bill is especially harmful for small and medium refineries that are reinvesting their profits to expand refining capacity. In a time when America imports 10 percent of its refined fuel, we should be encouraging expansion of our own refining industry, not raising their cost of doing business. When we raise taxes, we discourage reinvestment and make it more likely the United States will become more dependent on foreign countries for our refined energy products.

As many have already pointed out, the United States dependency on foreign oil is already more than 60 percent, and growing. When we become even more dependent on unstable regions of the world for our oil and gas energy needs, we are placing more of our security into the hands of unpredictable and often hostile foreign governments and dictators.

As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I can tell you placing more of our energy security into dangerous regions of the world is the wrong path for America.

I am a supporter of both using and investing in alternative forms of energy as one way to decrease American dependency on foreign oil. The State of Kansas has great potential for being a leader in wind energy production and being a supplier of biomass for biofuel production.

But while our present economy depends largely on safe access to dependable sources of oil and natural gas, we must not penalize these manufacturing industries that provide us with the energy we all use.

I urge all my colleagues who care about keeping American jobs, boosting our economy and treating manufacturers tax equity to vote against this misleading Democrat energy bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for our Nation's seniors. In 2003 this body passed historic legislation that provided America's senior citizens with a true prescription drug benefit under Medicare Part D. I was pleased to vote for this bill. Since enactment, this program has been extremely successful. More than 38 million Medicare beneficiaries now have drug coverage, either through Medicare or another source. This represents about 90 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries.

We have been able to provide seniors with low cost, life saving medicines. In fact, the program has been so successful in encouraging private sectors to compete for enrollment, that the cost to seniors is much lower than anticipated. In fact, seniors are saving, on average, $1,200 a year on prescription drugs. And the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) reports that prices are continuing to decrease, due to this competition in the private sector. The `bids' by the prescription drug plans are 10 percent lower, on average, in 2007 than 2006. At the same time, Part D recipients saw a 13 percent increase in the number of medications available.

I strongly support the Republican motion to recommit which will ensure that the progress of the past several years continues. I will vote for the proposal to assure continued access to covered Part D drugs and pharmacy networks,

and to protect against increasing drug prices for veterans.

I cannot support H.R. 4 for one important reason: it will limit access to prescription drugs for senior citizens. The Washington Post shares these concerns, ``A switch to government purchasing of Medicare drugs would choke off this experiment before it had a chance to play out, and it would usher in its own problems.''

The Democrats want you to believe that this legislation will not limit the number of drugs available on a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan's formulary. They point to programs like the Veterans Administration and Medicaid to assure the public that access to drugs won't be limited. But the truth is that both the VA and Medicaid programs restrict patients' choice of drugs. Veterans have access to less than one-third of the prescription drugs available under Medicare Part D plans. State Medicaid programs also routinely limit the number and types of drugs that patients can receive.

In addition, and of particular concern to my constituents, the VA distributes 70 percent of its medications by mail. Seniors deserve the right to speak to their local pharmacist about their prescriptions, and not having that opportunity is a potential health risk. In contrast, the current Part D plan uses mail for less than 2 percent of its medications. We should not alter this important program.

As Leslie Norwalk, the Acting Administrator for CMS said, ``The bottom line from the news today is that beneficiaries are paying less in premiums and taxpayers are seeing billions of dollars in lower costs, without the need for government to interfere and reduce access or convenience for beneficiaries.'' As in many areas, the best thing the government can do is to step back and allow the current trend to work. Government interference would risk the value of this important benefit to our seniors. I encourage my colleagues to join me in standing up for low cost and full access to prescription drugs for senior citizens and vote against H.R. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Annie Work for her retirement from KWCH-TV in Wichita, Kansas. She has been a loyal employee since her first day in April 1986.

In this fast-paced media world where people are rushed and feel rushed, one could always count on walking into Channel 12 and being greeted by Annie's warm and friendly face. I knew that every time I entered the station, I would be greeted with a hearty welcome and then fall easily into conversation with her.

One of our favorite topics was golf. Her enjoyment of the sport and excitement she brings into the conversation about it is contagious.

Although I know she enjoys her job as the welcoming face for Channel 12, I am sure that Annie would say her proudest accomplishment is being the mother of five daughters. Every parent enjoys watching their family expand, and Annie has had the pleasure of welcoming into the world several grandchildren.

While Annie will be leaving the television station, I hope she will continue to publish the Urban News. This monthly newsletter founded by, published, edited and circulated by Annie helps the community keep aware of events occurring around them.

Again, I congratulate Annie Work on her invaluable contribution to KWCH, our community, and the Fourth District of Kansas. I know she will be missed by the rest of the Channel 12 staff, and I will miss having the opportunity to speak with her during my visits to the station.

I wish her all of the best in her retirement and all of her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a bill that is both morally and ethically compromising. H.R. 3, sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, would expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Supporters of this legislation are encouraging the destruction of human embryos in the hope of one day treating diseases.

The timing of this bill is especially ironic as we learned on January 7, 2007 that amniotic fluid stem cells were found to have pluripotent properties and grow as fast as embryonic stem cells. This is yet another example of a successful ethical alternative to embryonic stem cell research.

To date, there are 72 diseases and injuries that have been successfully treated with adult stem cells unlike embryonic stem cells which have yet to yield a single successful human treatment. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research would like you to believe there is no ongoing federal research using embryonic stem cell lines approved by the NIH, however, the United States leads the world in embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research received no federal funding through the NIH prior to 2001 when President Bush established a policy to allow for embryonic stem cell research on a line of existing cells. This was the first time the federal government had ever made funding available for embryonic stem cell research. Since then, more than $130 million of federal money has been spent on human embryonic stem cell research and over $3 billion has been spent on all stem cell research. This does not include the billions of dollars raised in the private sector for stem cell research.

While bioethics and science have brought about medical advancements and breakthroughs, our society should promote the protection of human life and dignity in all its forms. We can promote science and technology while applying ethical and moral guidelines that err on the side of life. Science can and should be used to improve the quality of lives, to save lives, cure fatal diseases and bring hope to those who are suffering, yet I cannot support legislation that would require the destruction of human embryos. Adult stem cell research has provided treatments of diseases while applying ethical standards.

I will continue to support legislation that promotes ethical science and produces an uncompromised standard that values all human life. H.R. 3 would only further expand the destruction of human life.

I will vote against this unethical and morally compromising bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.