David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this week we will address one of the most important national security issues of the 109th Congress. It also is an extraordinarily important economic issue, when it comes to the challenge of growth in this country and throughout this hemisphere. I am talking of course about the Dominican Republic Central American Free Trade Agreement. As I listened to my colleague from Oregon just a few minutes ago decry the problems of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the fact that there will be overpromising when it comes to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, I was struck by the fact that he really did not get the message that was provided by that great former senator, democratic presidential candidate from Massachusetts, Paul Tsongas, who said, the problem with my democratic party is that they love employees but they hate employers. The fact of the matter is, if you look all the way across the board, we know that globalization is inevitable. And as Prime Minister Singh said in his address to us a week ago tomorrow, right here in a joint session of Congress, we cannot ignore what is taking place in any other part of the world because of the fact that the globe is shrinking. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to overpromise and say passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement is all of a sudden going to solve every ailment of society. But I do know this, 22 years ago, we, with a huge bipartisan vote passed the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which, instead of sending aid, provided an opening, an opportunity for the Caribbean nations to have access to the U.S. consumer market. That has helped us and it has helped them. Right now, with the Central American Free Trade Agreement, all we are saying is let us have a reciprocal arrangement. 80 percent of the goods, including 99 percent of agricultural products from Central America come tariff free, tax free to U.S. consumer. That is a good thing. It has allowed us, Mr. Speaker, to allow the high standard of living that we have as Americans. Now, what we are saying is, through this agreement, let us open up their markets so that the 44 million consumers in the Dominican Republic and the 5 Central American countries can have access to U.S. manufactured goods. Now, one of the challenges that we face, of course, is our competition that is going on with the Pacific Rim. We, at the end of last week, saw finally moves toward re-evaluation of the yuan, the Chinese currency. And we know that if we are going to compete, it is important for us to implement hemispheric wide trade here so that we can compete with Asia and, specifically, with China. One of the things we also know, Mr. Speaker, is that if you buy a shirt from China it has a little more than 1 percent of U.S. content. If you buy a shirt from Central America that is manufactured in Central America, over 60 percent of it has U.S. content. So this agreement is going to enhance our ability, not only as a Nation, but as a hemisphere to be more competitive. We put together a wide range of agreements over the last several years, bilateral agreements with Jordan, Singapore, Australia, Chile, Morocco. They have all been great bilateral agreements. But right now, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to put together a very important multilateral agreement with six countries. That also will lay the groundwork for the very important effort that we have that will begin in the coming days to proceed with the Doha round with the WTO in Geneva. Why? Because the goal as was set forth back in 1947 when the general agreement on tariffs and trade was established was to eliminate tariffs. And we all know, Mr. Speaker, that a tariff is a tax. And so cutting taxes enhances the standard of living and the quality of life for people. This is a win-win for the United States of America, for the Central American countries, and for our region as a whole. I hope very much that our colleagues join in a strong bipartisan way, doing exactly what we did in 1983 when we passed the Caribbean basin initiative. Let us send this to the President so that it can be signed and so that we can have this win-win all the way around.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering today, H.R. 3070, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, is an important piece of legislation, especially because it is the first NASA authorization reported out of the Science Committee in 5 years. I want to commend my good friends Mr. Calvert, who Chairs the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, and Mr. Boehlert, who Chairs the Full Committee, for working to get this bill before us. NASA has undertaken a variety of missions over the years, and in my opinion some of the most exciting have happened in the past 3 or 4 years. As my colleagues all know, I have the privilege of representing NASA's La Canada Flintridge-based Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I was at JPL for Deep Impact, the mission that occurred during the Fourth of July and in which NASA engineers successfully maneuvered a probe into a collision course with a comet. Several of my colleagues, including Mr. Calvert and Mr. Schiff, joined me at JPL to celebrate our Nation's independence and to witness this incredible event. This was the first mission of its kind ever undertaken by NASA, and it will give us new insight into the origins of our solar system. Deep Impact is important not only for the science that it will yield, but also for the technical feat it represents. Temple I, the comet into which Deep Impact was steered, was traveling at 23,000 miles per hour some 268 million miles from Earth. Deep Impact was not the first time I have been able to witness first hand the amazing things that NASA and its scientists are capable of accomplishing. I was also at JPL in January of 2004 when the Mars Rover Spirit landed. Both Rovers have far surpassed their expected operational life and are still making discoveries on the Martian surface. Deep Impact, the Cassini-Huygens Probe, the Mars Rovers, and many missions before them, are all examples of what's right with NASA. NASA's missions are important not only for what we learn from them, but also for what they inspire us to do. NASA's missions and educational programs give our youth a sense of what is made possible by the sciences. Mathematics, engineering, and chemistry are all vitally important fields and are at the forefront of American innovation in the global economy. Without federal investment in NASA-sponsored programs, we would lose an important part of our technological edge in the world. With the Space Shuttle's imminent return to flight, and so many other exciting missions on the horizon, there is no reason why we cannot accomplish the bold vision that President Bush has outlined for space exploration. As Dr. Charles Elachi has so aptly stated after being named Director of JPL, ``We will continue to do what has never been done before, and go where no one has gone before.'' I commend the Members of the Science Committee for recognizing the important role that NASA plays not only in our society, but in our economy as well, and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today we face a great national security challenge, many challenges in fact. As we wage a global war on terror, we face an enemy that kills indiscriminately in its campaign against freedom, democracy and political pluralism. The brutal attacks in London just a couple of weeks ago and, of course, the other tragic news that we have gotten from London this week are a tragic reminder of the nature of the enemy that we face. But I believe that the true sign of our times is not the carnage of suicide bombers. It is the image of millions of Iraqis waiting in line to cast their first free votes, and millions more in Afghanistan, the Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and on and on and on around the world. Democracy is sprouting in places that seemed unthinkable and that has been the case for quite a while. The worldwide terror campaign that is being perpetrated and the rise of democracy in formerly inhospitable places are not unrelated. Just the opposite, in fact. The war that is being waged against political and economic freedom and our unwavering resolve to defeat it is pushing oppressed people to a tipping point. They are demanding the right to determine their own futures. And as President Bush has so clearly articulated, the spread of freedom is not just a consequence of the global war on terror. It is our best defense. That is, the spread of freedom is the most important thing that we can do for our national security. Those who embrace the democratic principles of liberty, opportunity and tolerance do not resort to terrorism. Aiding the establishment of democratic and free societies is squarely within our national interest. To that end I have had the great privilege of working with our distinguished Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), in the establishment of the House Democracy Assistance Commission. I have joined my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) who is the ranking member of this task force. The House Democracy Assistance Commission provides a forum for this body to play a significant and proactive role in establishing the strong, independent, transparent legislatures that are essential to a vibrant and healthy democracy. Our commission was established precisely because we realized that spreading freedom throughout the globe is as critical to preserving it right here at home because we realize that we cannot abandon anyone to tyranny. Just a short time ago most of us could not have imagined millions of Iraqis turning out to vote. But there they were on January 30, defying the terrorists and the world's expectations of what would happen there. Those of us who have been engaged with Central America over the past 2\1/2\ decades have been amazed by the transformation that has taken place there as well. Like their Iraqi counterparts, the people of Central America have made the journey from violence and oppression to democracy and freedom. Many of my colleagues will remember just how difficult that process was. Two decades ago President Reagan and this body were deeply concerned about the threat posed to the United States by the communist expansion and civil war that existed in our own backyards. As the Cold War neared its fourth decade, violent conflict in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras had the region in turmoil. Stability, let alone democracy, seemed absolutely unattainable. Today the region is just as important, Mr. Speaker, to our national interests. But rather than a threat, Central America is an ally and a partner in trade, counter terrorism, drug interdiction, and migration control. Our Central American friends play a vital role in the security and well-being of the United States of America. Again, for those who remember the struggle of the 1980s, this transformation is no less astounding than the one taking place at this very moment in Iraq. And our commitment to solidifying and strengthening the democratic institutions that are taking root there should be no less firm today than it was a decade and a half ago when this process began. The people of Central America have embraced democracy, but they now expect concrete results from their democratically elected leaders, and rightly so. They must find new opportunities for prosperity and a higher standard of living or they will question the democratic institutions that have only recently brought peace to that region. We cannot take the threat of faltering democracy lightly. Recent events in Venezuela and Bolivia are a testament to the potential for political instability in the absence of economic growth. Great economic gains have been made in the decade and a half since democracy took hold, but there is far more that needs to be done, Mr. Speaker. The average gross domestic product per capita for the five countries of DR-CAFTA, and those countries are the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the GDP on a per capita basis is roughly about $2,660 or less than 7 percent of the U.S. GDP per capita. Even citizens in the post successful of those 5 countries, Costa Rica, have one-fourth the purchasing power of the average American. Inflation, unemployment and under-employment are significant challenges. If these economic realities are not more effectively resolved, our neighbors could in fact turn to alternative leadership. Leadership far more hostile to the United States and democracy. All one needs to do is simply witness Venezuela and their President, Hugo Chavez. The countries of -CAFTA have 2 paths before them. One leads to trade liberalization and the rule of law. The other leads to protectionism and the rule of the well-connected. The United States should not slam the door in the face of those who are making the right and difficult decision to pursue open trade. The presidents of the DR-CAFTA countries have staked much political capital on their decisions to adopt this multilateral free trade agreement. The DR-CAFTA leaders have embarked on this path because they know it will mean for their citizens, they know it will mean a great deal for them, economic opportunities, less economic stratification, increased economic transparency, a strengthened rule of law and hope for the future. An American rejection of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, would be politically devastating to these democratically elected governments that have staked so much on the promise of this agreement. If they are unable to deliver on the economic improvements they have pledged, these visionary leaders will be pressured to pursue protectionism over liberalization, or worse, failure to enact the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, could lead to the rise of the political elite, a political elite that is hostile to the United States, inclined to demagoguery, and uncooperative in regional security and economic affairs. Again, all one needs to witness is Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Now, let us consider the case of Nicaragua. President Enrique Bolanos' government in Managua faces a litany of threats on a daily basis. An unholy alliance of the extreme left led by Daniel Ortega and of the extreme right led by jailed former President Aleman is challenging the authority and stability of the Bolanos government. These two old Nicaraguan political hands, Ortega and Aleman, would seem to have little in common but they do share a distaste for the free market. These men have staked their political futures in large part on their opposition to the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement. Defeating the agreement would give credence to their anti-economic liberalization rhetoric and momentum to their undemocratic plots. Aleman cares more for his own enrichment than for democracy and Ortega is a compadre of Fidel Castro's and routinely describes the United States of America as an ``enemy of humanity.'' Ortega also keeps close company with Commandante Tomas Borge, someone who I got to know quite well during the 1980s. Tomas Borge is the only surviving member of the Sandinista Front in Nicaragua. He has said that the defeat of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement which he has worked very hard to bring down, the defeat of that would lead to the consolidation, he says, of the ``leftist triangle.'' That leftist triangle of course is Cuba, Venezuela, and as he says, now Nicaragua. Coming from a man who founded an organization, the Sandinista Liberation Front, that violated human rights, consorted and to this day continues to consort with terrorists, and targeted Americans is obviously a very troubling sign. A return of the Sandinista regime and the establishment of an anti-American coalition involving Castro and Chavez would be extremely dangerous for the United States and for our regional interests. We must do everything in our power, Mr. Speaker, to support the positive democratic governments we worked so hard to help create. A return to the violent past would be devastating for the United States, the region and, most tragically, the people of Central America for whom we fought and struggled so hard during the 1980s. Just as we are working to spread freedom and democracy around the world, we must not negligent it in our own back yard. We must help to increase the prosperity that undergirds peace. And we can accomplish this, Mr. Speaker, by passing the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement. But DR-CAFTA and the economic future of the region are not just critical to our security interests. They are vital to our economic interests as well. Over the past 20 years, we have unilaterally opened our market to Central American trade. Producers in the DR-CAFTA region send 80 percent of their goods, including 99 percent of their agricultural products, to the United States of America duty free. Now, that is good for U.S. consumers to have access to all of those things. These special preferences have enjoyed strong support from the Congress. Large bipartisan, and I stress bipartisan, majorities in both Houses of Congress have long recognized the importance of supporting economic growth in the region. Back in 1983, we passed the original Caribbean Basin Initiative in the House by a vote of 392 to 18. It does not get much stronger and more bipartisan than that. Since then, we have continued to acknowledge that opening our economy to the Central American people is critical to stabilizing the region and providing the tools that will lift them out of poverty. In 2000, the House reaffirmed our commitment to creating new opportunities in this hemisphere when 309 Members, which included 183 Republicans and 126 Democrats, voted in support of the Trade and Development Act, further opening the U.S. market to Central American goods. With DR-CAFTA, our partners in the region are offering to make these benefits reciprocal. They have access to our markets. Everything that they have can come virtually duty-free into the United States. Now, U.S. producers under this agreement will enjoy the duty-free access that their Central American counterparts currently enjoy. Tariffs on 80 percent of all manufactured goods will immediately drop to zero, Mr. Speaker, that is from 80 percent to zero, while the rest are phased in over a 10-year period of time. But lower tariffs are just the beginning. In the 21st century it is not just the product itself that is important; it is the idea behind the product, the innovations and the creative content, that make U.S. producers so valuable and our economy so strong. Our knowledge-based economy, based on our power to innovate, has secured our place as the world's economic superpower. But as intellectual property grows in significance to the United States economy, so does the importance of protecting intellectual property. We always talk about the importance of property rights. Intellectual property is equally important. DR-CAFTA fully accounts for the value of intellectual property and provides the state-of-the-art protection that our 21st-century economy demands. It will bring the region's intellectual property laws in line with U.S. laws. It will ensure that violators will be appropriately punished. And, most important, it will provide the tools to successfully enforce these comprehensive commitments. This agreement will create an environment where innovative American goods can compete fairly and openly. Without these protections, Mr. Speaker, the benefits of low tariffs could not be fully realized. The 21st-century economy is also a service-providing economy. Services, those that cater to consumers like you and me, those that cater to other businesses now make up 80 percent of private-sector GDP, as well as 80 percent of employment in this country. And it is in these sectors that our DR-CAFTA negotiators achieved some of our hardest fought and most significant gains. Service sectors in the DR-CAFTA countries are heavily protected, and in many cases they are closed entirely, closed entirely, to foreign investment and to competition as well. This agreement will open up these markets virtually across the board for the highly competitive service providers based here in the United States. From telecommunications to insurance to financial planning, DR-CAFTA will grant the United States new access in the sectors that make up the backbone of our economy and the future of our continued competitiveness. But to fully grasp the significance of this agreement for our economy, we have to look beyond individual sectors and tariff schedules. We have to look at the bigger picture. Mr. Speaker, we live in a global economy. We were reminded of that just this week when Prime Minister Singh delivered his address, the Indian Prime Minister, to a joint session of Congress. The impact of the worldwide market is growing, not shrinking. It would not be in our interest to run from globalization, even if it were possible for us to do so. Our response must be to become more competitive and continue to prosper from a growing global marketplace. After all, 94 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders. A key part of making this region more competitive is to work together. We already have economies that are complementary, and there is no better example of how the economic relationship between the United States and the Dominican Republic-Central American countries region can work for our mutual benefit than the textile and apparel industries. The DR-CAFTA countries are the second largest importers of U.S. textiles. Again, they are the second largest importers of U.S. textiles; and we are their largest export destination for finished product, for apparel. At a time when the United States textile industry looks for new ways to remain competitive in the global economy, this region is our strongest trading partner in textiles and apparel. Just look at the content of clothes that our families wear. Central American apparel is made mostly from U.S. products, 80 percent on average. Apparel coming from the Pacific Rim, by contrast, is made up of less than 2 percent, 2 percent, U.S. content. Again, 80 percent of that from Central America is U.S. content. Only 2 percent from Asia is made up of U.S. content. With the lifting of worldwide textile quotas earlier this year, we all face the challenge of growing Chinese imports. This includes Central American apparel manufacturers, who have been forced to close up shop as a result of increased Sino competition. The Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement provides the opportunity to strengthen the regional supply chain and boost an apparel industry that is heavily dependent on U.S. products. Upon enactment of this agreement, Mr. Speaker, more than 90 percent of all apparel made in the DR-CAFTA region will be sewn from fabric and yarn made right here in the United States of America. All American textile goods will receive immediate duty-free access to the DR-CAFTA market, and these benefits will be retroactive to January 1 of 2004. That is a year and a half back. By dismantling the trade barriers that have hindered job creation here at home, we will create new opportunities for America's workers. And by strengthening regionally based industries, job creation here in the United States will support job creation in the DR-CAFTA countries. Far from a zero sum game, a zero sum scenario, we have the chance to prosper and grow together. The opportunities for greater economic opportunity do not end with textiles and apparel. As the DR-CAFTA economies grow and diversify, the strengths of our economies will continue to reinforce each other. This further integration of the regional economy will build upon the tremendous success of another FTA, an FTA that we are frequently told rhymes with CAFTA. Many DR-CAFTA opponents paint the agreement as a repeat of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. Then they bemoan NAFTA as a catalyst for economic failure and job loss in the United States. Mr. Speaker, one simply has to look at the economic facts to declare their rhetoric as the distortionist tactics of protectionists. So what are these facts? First, since NAFTA's implementation, we have added 20 million jobs to our labor market here in the United States. Our economy has grown by 38 percent since implementation of the NAFTA. U.S. exports to our NAFTA partners have more than doubled, growing by 112 percent. Let me say that again. Many people believe that we only buy everything from Mexico and Canada. But our exports since passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement have increased by 112 percent. Some of the biggest economic gains have been, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, in the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing output has risen by a third, while real manufacturing wages have increased by 27 percent. And NAFTA has yielded 43 percent of U.S. manufacturing export growth as well as 28 percent of import growth. So we have seen that this has clearly been a win-win all the way around. The U.S. certainly has not monopolized the benefits of NAFTA. The agreement also led to 30 percent growth in the Mexican economy. While economic liberalization has moved more slowly and less uniformly than we would hope, it is clear that increased trade has been a very positive force there as well. Wages in Mexico in trade-related industries are 37 percent higher than in other industries. Again, in trade-related areas we have a 37 percent higher wage rate in Mexico than in other areas. Mexican wages and employment are higher in states with higher foreign investment and trade; and migration from those states, Mr. Speaker, is lower. Wages are also higher in sectors with more exposure to either imports or exports. First through NAFTA and now through DR-CAFTA, we are cooperating, growing, and becoming more competitive with our friends and neighbors in this region. We can continue to use our respective strengths and resources to our mutual benefit and compete in the worldwide market. Many of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, claim that mutually beneficial cooperation is not possible because the DR-CAFTA countries are too poor and their labor protections are far from perfect. It is certainly true that far too many Dominicans and Central Americans live in poverty. No one is ignoring that fact. But how can we look at rampant poverty in our own back yard and then condemn our neighbors to remain in these conditions? The World Bank recently conducted a study of DR-CAFTA and the impact it would have on the region. Their findings were very clear. This agreement will reduce poverty and raise the standards of living for Dominicans and Central Americans, they found. As the report notes, parties to free trade agreements experience higher growth in GDP, averaging a 3 percent increase over 5 years. For the DR-CAFTA countries, this extra 3 percent growth will mean that nearly half a million people, nearly half a million people will be lifted out of poverty by the end of this decade. The World Bank confirms the DR-CAFTA will increase investment in the region, combat corruption, and improve the quality of public institutions. It will raise the standard of living, particularly for those who are living in poverty. It will spur innovation, and it will solidify the broad economic gains made in the region in recent years. The report's analysis further notes that FTAs like DR-CAFTA lead to higher wages and improved working conditions. All of these factors lead the World Bank to conclude: ``A central factor in determining the future of Central America will be the ratification and implementation of a Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.'' Mr. Speaker, rejecting CAFTA, on the other hand, would simply sanction the status quo. Let us look at all the challenges we have. No one has offered an alternative to the DR-CAFTA. If we were to reject it, it would deny the DR-CAFTA countries the tools to create jobs and develop the resources to implement strong labor protections. Congress recognized this principle when we passed free trade agreements with Jordan and Morocco. Both Jordan and Morocco have struggled with high poverty levels and a lack of adequate resources to fully enforce labor protections. Yet bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate demonstrated that economic liberalization was key to improving these conditions and sent these FTAs to the President's desk. That was a decision that both Houses of Congress made with bipartisan votes. Once again, we have the opportunity to combat poverty and improve labor conditions with the passage of the Dominican Republic- Central American Free Trade Agreement. Once again, Mr. Speaker, these positive economic benefits have broader security implications for the United States. Rising standards of living in the region will assist in resolving an issue that affects all of us, that issue is illegal immigration. Specifically, we can deter illegal immigration by addressing one of its root causes, that being poverty. Mr. Speaker, illegal immigration is a national problem that saps the resources of local law enforcement, overwhelms our medical system, and puts great strains on our schools. With over 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States, the cost to the Federal Government and State governments, as we all know, is enormous. Nearly all illegal immigrants to the United States come in search of work, economic opportunity, a chance to feed their families because they have found limited opportunity at home. In fact, T.J. Bonner, the President of the National Border Patrol Council, estimates that 98 percent of illegal immigrants come to this country for one reason and one reason only, seeking economic opportunity. To stem the tide of illegal immigrants, it stands to reason that we should encourage economic prosperity in the countries that are frequently the source of those illegal immigrants. DR-CAFTA gives the Dominican Republic and the Central American countries the much-needed push towards prosperity that they so strongly desire. It will open markets and opportunity in the region, allow their citizens to purchase more goods for less money, give small businesses reason to expand, help create jobs, and raise the standards of living. And most important, the people of Central America will have an incentive to build their future in their own countries rather than to make the dangerous, illegal attempts to enter our country. This is in our best interest as a country. It is our duty as a steadfast ally to our friends and neighbors in Central America. As the former President of Costa Rica, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias wrote in the Washington Post, ``The Central American Free Trade Agreement would allow Central America to thrive by exporting goods through trade rather than exporting people through migration. Access to the U.S. market is the most important tool to speed our economic and social development and to keep our people at home.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge this body not to, in the words of Oscar Arias, punish Central America for achieving peace. Tom Friedman of the New York Times recently wrote, ``In the 1980s we were worried that Central America was going communist. Now it seems today that people are worried that Central America is going capitalist.'' Our neighbors want to embrace that economic liberalization and what it can bring. Through the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement, we will help them continue to make progress against poverty in our hemisphere and reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States. Unfortunately, it is on this very issue of immigration that the DR- CAFTA debate has become clouded. There has been some confusion as to the impact of the agreement, and the impact it will have on U.S. immigration law. I would like to set the record straight. There is absolutely nothing in the agreement that affects our immigration laws. To ensure against any ambiguity in that matter, all seven parties to the agreement signed a legally binding document unequivocally saying ``No provision of the agreement shall be construed to impose any obligation on a party regarding its immigration measures.'' That is actually part of the agreement. To make it very clear, nothing in the Central American Free Trade Agreement will in any way modify U.S. immigration law. DR-CAFTA fully preserves both existing U.S. immigration law and the power of this Congress to legislate at its discretion on immigration matters. In fact, DR-CAFTA fully preserves the power of this Congress to legislate at its discretion on any matter whatsoever. This agreement will not cede our sovereignty or create loopholes in our immigration law, as some have argued. What it will do is lower the tariff and nontariff barriers our producers and service providers currently face. It will strengthen the regional supply chain that helps us compete globally, particularly with regards to China. It will build upon the economic gains we have already achieved in this region through the North American Free Trade Agreement, and it will pave the way for even stronger gains throughout the hemisphere. DR-CAFTA will provide the Dominican Republic and the Central American people with the tools to reach the first rung of the economic ladder, and it will help them as they seek to climb that economic ladder. It will provide hope for opportunities at home; and, therefore, an incentive to stay and build a future in their home country. It will reinforce their faith in the power of economic freedom and strengthen their commitment to the rule of law and the free market. And it will solidify these six countries as free and democratic allies right at our doorstep. Mr. Speaker, we have learned just how critical the spread of democracy is to our national security. Our troops are currently in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting to ensure their fledgling democracies are sustained. The Central American people have already done the most difficult work. With our help, they have rejected dictatorship, totalitarian, authoritarianism, and they have chosen to embrace democracy. They have laid the foundations of the rule of law, political pluralism and a commitment to free markets. But these tremendous gains are still very fragile and they are reversible. After all, these are democracies that are only 15 years old. We cannot leave before the job is done. We need the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement to fully achieve what Ronald Reagan set out to do more than 20 years ago, and that is bring permanent peace and prosperity to our back door. When Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for President on November 6, 1979, he envisioned a free trade accord for this entire hemisphere. The Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement is a very important step on that road towards implementing the vision of Ronald Reagan. I urge my colleagues to join with us in a bipartisan way, which is the way that we have traditionally dealt with the very important issue of international trade, and come together when we next week cast this critical vote on the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, the USA PATRIOT Act. I want to thank and congratulate my colleague from Georgia for his fine management of this very important rule. We obviously are at a critical juncture in our Nation's history. September 11 changed the world for all of us here, and it changed the rest of the world. Obviously, what happened 2 weeks ago today in London made a big change for them and what is going on at this moment in London brought about a big change for them. We have made a commitment that, because of the fact that we are in the midst of a global war on terror, we need to do everything within our power to redouble our efforts to ensure that we win that global war on terror. We passed the PATRIOT Act, Mr. Speaker, 6 weeks after September 11 of 2001. At that time, I was very insistent on the need for sunset provisions. In fact, I remember going at it with our former colleague, now the Director of Central Intelligence, Porter Goss. He was not a strong proponent of sunset provisions at that time. And I said: we are so close to the tragic day of September 11 that it is absolutely essential that we ensure that we are doing the right thing with this legislation. And we are obviously passing it under the immediate shadow of September 11, and so it seems to me that it is the right thing for us to do to sunset the provisions here. We have gone through this nearly 5-year period, and we have looked for the issue that my colleague the gentlewoman from Sacramento (Ms. Matsui) raised as the number one priority concern, the civil liberties of the American people. I consider myself a small ``l'' libertarian Republican. I am very, very committed to the civil liberties of all the American people, and I believe, just as my colleagues have said, that that is at the core of what the United States of America is all about. I believe passionately that protecting our homeland and protecting civil liberties are not mutually exclusive. The PATRIOT Act that we have before us is a very responsible measure. We do have sunset provisions remaining intact for two very important provisions after 10 years. Some argue that is too long, but we have those maintained. But we have to realize that if we are going to deal with this challenge, uncertainty is something that people in law enforcement cannot live with. If we had seen failure, if we had seen violations of civil liberties, then I believe that making modifications would be appropriate, but we continue to have report after report saying there are no instances of civil liberties being violated. Let me make a statement about this rule. This is obviously a very delicate issue. We had 47 amendments that were submitted to us in the Committee on Rules, and I am very proud of the fact that we were able to work with our colleagues addressing concerns that they raised. The primary committee of jurisdiction here is the Committee on the Judiciary. We all know that. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence shares very important jurisdiction as well, and I understand that. I know there was concern that was raised last night in the Committee on Rules on the so-called ``Lone Wolf amendment'' that was addressed, a desire to have it sunsetted by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). The Committee on Rules chose to comply with the request of the primary committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on the Judiciary, on this issue. But now having looked at this rule with 47 amendments, nearly half of the amendments that were submitted to us, 11 of the amendments that are made in order under this rule are either amendments offered by Democrats or offered by Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan amendments, and 10 of the amendments that are made in order are offered by Republicans. So I believe that we have got a good balance on a very important critical issue that must be addressed. I believe that the PATRIOT Act itself is actually looking out for America, it is not looking after Americans. That is something that we need to realize as part of the very important goal here. I believe this measure will go a long way towards protecting our homeland and ensuring the civil liberties of every single American.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 1 p.m. on Monday, July 25, 2005. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on Government Reform on April 13, 2005, which was filed with the House on April 28, 2005. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating all of my colleagues who have stood up this morning in strong support of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. We have seen a very long and growing list of individuals here in the House, Democrats and Republicans, and organizations as well, U.S. businesses, large and small, conservatives and liberals, academia, foreign policy experts and prominent Central Americans. But sometimes it is more telling to look at the opponents of a particular measure. One of the fiercest opponents of DR-CAFTA is Daniel Ortega, the former Nicaraguan Communist dictator responsible for years of violence and oppression. Today he is trying, as he has been for years, to stage a comeback. He is banking a great deal on the effort to defeat DR-CAFTA. Daniel Ortega knows full well that the economic opportunities that DR-CAFTA will bring would improve the quality of life for Nicaraguans, fight corruption through greater transparency, and solidify Nicaragua's commitment to economic and political freedom. For a dictator whose support stems from civil unrest and ability to manipulate Nicaragua's judicial and legislative systems, implementation of DR-CAFTA would be extremely bad news. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Ortega agenda and support DR-CAFTA.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, following the example of brevity, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I am very happy to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I would just like to congratulate him for the emphasis that he has had on the education aspect of this, along with training, as a very important part of our effort here. He has helped us modify the language in the measure and he represents the Navy Postgraduate School very, very well. And we look forward to seeing the success of this program due in large part to his efforts.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by extending my hearty congratulations to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and my very dear friend and neighbor, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), not only for their fine work on this legislation, but for their support of the amendment that I am offering here. I rise, Madam Chairman, to ask for my colleagues' support for this amendment which I have authored to improve our government's response to complex international conflict, and this amendment I hope will ultimately improve our ability to prevent the conflicts before they erupt. The events of September 11 of 2001 have obviously taught all of us that we no longer have the luxury of ignoring state failure. At the turn of the millennium, the government of Afghanistan all too quickly collapsed, was replaced by the ruthless Taliban, and became a safe haven for al Qaeda. The attacks that our country suffered were a tragic wake-up call to the dangers that failed states pose to our national security. Nearly 4 years later, too many countries remain beset by corruption, violence, resource scarcity, and literally no leadership. Scores of these governments could collapse at a moment's notice and be replaced by anarchy. These failing states represent a grave danger to the United States. Our government must be prepared to stabilize where we can and reconstruct what we must in order to prevent a devastating vacuum of lawlessness from developing, which allows terrorists and rogue leaders to flourish. The President and Congress have already taken a strong first step in addressing this challenge. The establishment of the Office for the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization created a central interagency coordination point for international stabilization and reconstruction operations. The office, headed by Ambassador Carlos Pascual, will monitor political and economic stability worldwide and prepare plans for stabilization missions for the most dire of cases. But more must be done. Madam Chairman, one of the President's top priorities for this new office is to create a civilian ``rapid response'' unit to deploy on short notice to sites of international instability. The goal is to mitigate any potential conflict and, if possible, prevent it. The amendment that I am offering would today authorize the creation of an Active Response Corps comprised of U.S. Government personnel who have the skills necessary for such missions. The amendment also will expand the use of civilian volunteers from outside the government who have the right talents and are willing to serve in stabilization reconstruction missions overseas. There are many Americans who have the skills and desire to serve the country by preventing conflict and expanding democracy, as we heard today from Prime Minister Singh. Judges, law enforcement officers, civil administrators, constitutional experts, engineers, linguists, and many other individuals are needed to address the challenges posed by failing states. This amendment gives the State Department the mechanism it needs to identify and rapidly deploy these volunteers who come from all walks of life. Madam Chairman, it is the top priority of every Member of this body to protect the national security of the United States of America. Fortress America is a thing of the past, and we can no longer comfortably ignore weak and failing states just because they sit halfway across the globe. When our government deems it necessary to initiate a stabilization or reconstruction operation, it must have the tools to do the job. This amendment provides the President with those tools. By deploying early with the most appropriate personnel, the Active Response Corps will save lives by stabilizing countries and preventing the spread of conflict and civil strife, thereby reducing the need for later military intervention. For too many years, the United States has lacked the institutional civilian capacity to rapidly respond to failing states. We ignore the dangers of such states at our own peril. I am gratified to have the support, as I said, of the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee, and I ask my colleagues to join with us in support of this effort. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. In fact, if the gentleman will yield further, the New York Times made it very clear, it is wealthy Americans. Wealthy Americans, those in the upper income brackets, who have provided that great surge of revenues to the Federal Treasury. Why? Because of the economic growth that President Bush and this Republican Congress predicted would in fact happen. And it was not simply a prediction. We are clearly the party of ideas. We have made that clear with all the proposals that are out here. But the bankrupt ideology, the ideological baggage of the past, more spending and higher taxes as a panacea of the future, is obviously a failed policy. Time and time again the very distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations comes before the Committee on Rules and requests, on virtually every appropriations bill, to increase spending. And how does he propose to pay for that? By imposing a surtax on those upper-income wage earners. Well, the fact of the matter is, those upper-income wage earners are, by virtue of having made more and more investments with their income, are increasing their tax responsibility to the Federal Treasury. So if you couple the economic growth policies along with, as my friend from Texas has just said, our passing appropriations bills that have real spending cuts for the first time in a long period of time, we are going a long way towards getting our fiscal house in order. But being the party of ideas, we are not satisfied to stop right here and sit on our laurels. And that is why this Careers for a 21st-Century America agenda is such an important one, because we want to expand on the great success that we are enjoying today. I thank my friend for yielding to me and for taking out this Special Order.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I think an important point that was actually included in that New York Times article about which we have been referring from yesterday is who is it, which taxpayer is in fact providing this dramatic increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury? I would ask my colleagues if they could guess which taxpayer is in fact providing that flow of revenue. Does the gentleman know?

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman from Kansas will yield.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my dear friend from Texas and with the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). First of all, let me join in extending congratulation to my friend from Kansas for his focus on Careers for a 21st-Century America. As we look at the litany of items, health care security, bureaucratic red tape termination, lifelong learning, energy self-sufficiency and security, spurring innovation, trade fairness and opportunity, tax relief and simplification, and ending lawsuit abuse, I think those are very, very important goals. The majority leader and I yesterday had the opportunity, the gentleman mentioned the space program and the vision, of course, that Democratic President John F. Kennedy had for the space program, we yesterday were traveling to Florida; and, unfortunately, we did not get to see the space shuttle Discovery launched, but we know that we will. We hope very soon. But when we sat down on the plane, the majority leader had a copy of the New York Times. And it is not often that we spend time focusing on the great headlines in the New York Times, but in the upper left-hand column of yesterday's New York Times it said: ``Tax Revenues Surge and Will Cut the Deficit.'' That was the headline in the New York Times. And, frankly, both of us were shocked for about 15 minutes having seen such an accurate headline in the New York Times, but it is very true. And the thing that immediately came to mind was the fact that since Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, Democrat after Democrat would take to the well of this House, Madam Speaker, and proceed to say, if we put into place a tax cut, what is going to happen? Two things. We will see our economy head into the tank, and we will see the deficit surge. Now, during the decade of the 1980s, we all know that because of the Economic Recovery Tax Act that President Reagan put into place with a bipartisan majority here in the House of Representatives, because we were then in the minority, we were able to see a tax cut which doubled the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury through the decade of the 1980s. People are regularly rewriting history around here. I constantly here that Ronald Reagan presided over all this deficit spending. Well, what happened was we were able to put together this fragile working majority to pass the tax cuts; but, unfortunately, because of the Democrat majority, we saw spending continue to increase in a wide range of areas. One very important area that we all supported, that was of course the defense build-up which brought an end to the Cold War, it brought the Soviet Union to its knees. We saw the Berlin Wall crumble because of what took place in the 1980s, but we had those revenues because of those tax cuts. My friend from Texas knows very well, and we were discussing this yesterday, one of the things that is important, and that is why I am so proud of the work that this effort, the work being done by this group put together by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), is focused on rather than simply pointing our finger elsewhere, and I see the chart that the gentleman has there, juxtaposing Mexico's and Canada's regulatory burden as a percentage of gross domestic product versus ours. We have unfortunately in this country failed to spend time looking at ourselves. We are constantly pointing the finger outward saying, they have caused our problems here. This country has caused our problems. We need to look ourselves at the tax and regulatory burden that jeopardizes the kind of growth that we need to have. In spite of these restrictions that exist, we have done phenomenally well. And I will tell you, I am glad to see trade is one of those items on the agenda for our competitiveness, because we know that the world has access to the U.S. consumer market today. One of the great things we have done is we have made sure that the American consumer can have access to the best quality products at the lowest possible price. One of the things that needs to be done is we need to recognize prying open new markets, when 94 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our border, is the right thing to do. That is why inclusion in the Central American Free Trade Agreement is absolutely crucial to this economic growth agenda. The other day I had a former college classmate of mine come in, and I did not know this, but he has been living and working in Cambodia for the last 15 years. I said, well, what brings you to Washington? He said, I am here to make sure that you all pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The guy is in Cambodia and he is coming here to ask Members of Congress to support the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Why? Because he said the people of Cambodia are concerned that if you do not pass that market-opening opportunity for U.S. goods, then we will see this overall agenda for global leadership by the United States and free trade jeopardized. So we know this is a benefit to the U.S. Again, that is a policy that we can pursue, and we have been very fortunate in being able to work with those five democratically elected presidents in Central America and the president of the Dominican Republic and their parliaments in making sure that we implement this. They understand that market-opening opportunities are very, very key. Another thing that struck me was, I was reading a study the other day by a guy who actually had been associated with President Bush No. One, President Bush 41 we like to call him, one of his economic advisers. His name is Todd Buchholz, and he did this study in which he showed that 20 percent of the jobs in the United States of America require some kind of licensing to get that job. For example, in the City of New York, if you want to repair a video cassette recorder, you have to have a license to do that. In the State of Louisiana, anyone in the State of Louisiana who wants to arrange flowers has to be licensed by the State of Louisiana to be able to arrange flowers. If you look at those kinds of constraints that are government imposed, that is the kind of thing that we as a Congress need to look at and focus on. And that is why focusing on the 21st-century economy, as the gentleman from Kansas is doing so well, is the right thing to do. I would just like to see if my friend from Texas or friend from Kansas agree or disagree with the arguments I am trying to propound here.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, since Ronald Reagan was President, I have been listening to my very distinguished friends on the other side of the aisle time and time again say that, if we cut taxes, the economy will go into the tank and will dramatically exacerbate the Federal deficit. Yesterday morning we picked up the New York Times, and there it was: It showed that the tax cuts that we put into place over the past few years under the leadership of President Bush, in fact, have increased the flow of revenues to the Federal treasury. And guess who is paying those increased taxes, Mr. Speaker? It is the wealthy. We have also seen this morning evidence of zero inflation. That was what was reported this morning, zero inflation. We have seen the gross domestic product growth at 3.8 percent, and we are continuing to see more and more jobs created in this country. Mr. Speaker, there are many other things that we can do to expand this very positive economic growth that we are enjoying today, and it is first to further cut taxes so that we can expand that growth and also to realize that a tariff is a tax, and if we can eliminate taxes by implementing the Central American Free Trade Agreement, we will open up new markets for U.S. goods and services. Let us recognize the growth that we have had and expand this by opening up new markets with passage of CAFTA.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act, which authorizes flood protection and environmental restoration projects to be undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to reduce flood damage and improve environmental restoration. The House would not be considering this bill were it not for the hard work and leadership of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan. In our ongoing efforts to manage our water supplies, this bill provides the critical partnership of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist local water agencies in drought-proofing our region and improving our water infrastructure. Specifically, the bill authorizes $20 million for the cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre, for their Water Environmental Infrastructure Program. This program will improve the water infrastructure that both cities rely upon, which is at risk due to deterioration from age and from the potential impact from a major seismic event in the region. The bill also authorizes $13 million for the city of Upland's storm drainage project for the Upland Basin to provide greater flood control retention and groundwater aquifer recharge capacities. This project will provide the opportunity to recharge 1326 acre-feet per year of storm flows that would otherwise be conveyed outside of the Chino Groundwater Basin. Additionally, the project will provide the opportunity to recharge approximately 2300 acre-feet per year of excess imported water supplies or potentially recycled water for future groundwater extraction and use during dry drought periods. Completion of the project will increase water conservation and increase water reliability for local water producers by utilizing the Chino Groundwater Basin for water storage, reducing the dependence on imported water during peak demands or drought periods. Additionally, the bill authorizes $5 million for the Raymond Basin Management Board's Southern California Foothill Communities Water Supply Reliability Program. The Raymond Basin Management Board encompasses the cities of La Canada, Sierra Madre, Pasadena, Arcadia and Alhambra, six water companies, three water districts, and three associations, and has brought together the communities along the San Gabriel mountain range and four groundwater basins in meeting the water needs in this region. The authorization will help in their planning, design and construction of groundwater quality and supply projects throughout the San Gabriel Mountain foothill region including the Six Basins, Chino, San Gabriel and Raymond groundwater basins. With the passage of the Water Resources Development Act, we can work with the Senate to send a good bill to the President for his signature. Again, I thank my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their dedication to providing this foundation for sound water management. I also want to applaud the hard work of the local water agencies and local governments that do such terrific work in our communities.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, following up on the colloquy of our colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), I would like to announce that the Committee on Rules may meet next week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005. The Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ordered the bill reported on July 13. Both committees are expected to file their reports with the House by Monday, July 18. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in H-312 of the Capitol by 6 p.m. on Tuesday, July 19. Members should be advised that a combined text from the committees of jurisdiction should be available for their review on the committees' websites and on the Committee on Rules website by tomorrow, Friday, July 15. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to ensure that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of July 18 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3070, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005. The Committee on Science ordered the bill reported today and is expected to file its report with the House on Monday, July 18. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in H-312 of the Capitol by 12 noon on Tuesday, July 19. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Science which should be available for their review on the websites of both the Committee on Science and the Committee on Rules tomorrow. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee may meet the week of July 18 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. The Committee on International Relations ordered the bill reported on June 9, 2005, and filed its report in the House on July 13. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Monday, July 18. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the International Relations Committee. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 68, legislation authorizing the U.S. Mint to produce commemorative coins for the 50th anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the La Canada-Flintridge-based Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which I am privileged to represent. NASA and JPL's decades of space and planetary exploration are worthy of this recognition. For more than fifty years, JPL has reached the outer limits of our solar system and made incredible technological breakthroughs. These achievements are all thanks to the outstanding people who have worked there over the years. Having just recently visited JPL for Deep Impact, I am confident they have another exciting fifty years ahead. Several colleagues joined me at JPL on July 4th to watch Deep Impact, a mission that will expand our understanding of the universe and answer many questions about the origins of our solar system. As many of you read in the news, Deep Impact mission scientists at JPL accomplished the amazing feat of flying an 820-pound probe into the heart of a comet 268 million miles from Earth. To complicate matters, the comet was speeding through space at 23,000 miles per hour. I want to thank my good friends Mr. Calvert, who chairs the House Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and Mr. Schiff, who used to represent JPL and now has Caltech in his district, for joining me at JPL to celebrate our nation's independence. I am sure they will agree that the fireworks we saw from JPL' s Mission Control room on July 4th rivaled those that were launched here at our Nation's capital. Deep Impact is just the latest in a long series of incredible accomplishments of JPL and NASA, dating back to the very beginning of United States space exploration. On January 31, 1958, the American space age began with the launch of Explorer I, the first U.S. satellite. At a time of national disappointment following the Soviet Union's successful launch of Sputnik, Explorer I turned the tide in international space exploration, displayed America's pioneering spirit- and scientific excellence, and spurred our space efforts. The organization behind the development, launch, and control of Explorer I was JPL. JPL will continue to push the boundaries of space and science with upcoming missions, such as SIM PlanetQuest and the Terrestrial Planet Finder. These missions will bring us closer to discovering whether there may be other planets like our own. This quest is an important one, which is why the search for Earth-like planets is a central part of the President's vision for space exploration. I have no doubt these very exciting missions will expand our horizons, answer many questions and capture our imagination, just as previous missions have. For example, it was one year ago that the Cassini-Huygens Spacecraft successfully entered orbit around Saturn. Since that time we have seen some incredible images and learned a great deal about Saturn and its rings. A little over two years ago, the first of the two Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit, was launched. In January 2004, the second rover, Opportunity, landed on Mars. Both have proven to be work horses on the planet's unforgiving surface, and both have made fascinating discoveries. Spirit found evidence that early Martian history was wet and violently explosive, and Opportunity found evidence of a shallow ancient sea. There are also tangible scientific and technological results from JPL and NASA's successes. For example, the work of scientists and engineers at JPL has resulted in medical imaging technology used in brain surgery, the detection of breast cancer and detection of skin cancer, and in computer chips that have been used to reduce engine emissions in automobiles. These and other breakthroughs play a critical role in ensuring America keeps its technological and scientific edge. I congratulate JPL and NASA on their many decades of exploration and discovery.