Geoff Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 458) to prevent the sale of abusive insurance and investment products to military personnel, as amended.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues that there is a long history of certain companies and agents using abusive sales tactics to sell financial products of dubious value to our members of the armed services. Problems have included abusive and coercive sales tactics, outdated and high-cost products, and a lack of uniform regulatory oversight of these practices on our military bases and posts. The Pentagon has issued directives intended to prevent these abuses. But with the ongoing confusion over regulatory jurisdiction, the lack of communication between government agencies, and lack of sufficient protection standards for certain financial products, it is clear that the abuses will not stop unless Congress enacts the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. Unfortunately, there are a few bad agents in the securities and insurance industry that have been taking advantage of our military personnel by selling them harmful insurance and investment products. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, when I myself was a young officer in the Army, a group of salesmen showed up on post and convinced my fellow soldiers and me that I could begin saving for my retirement by buying into an investment plan that included insurance and mutual funds. I was so impressed with their infomercial-like presentation that I invested what was a lot of money to me at the time. It was not until I got out of the Army and into the business world that I discovered how uncompetitive these products were compared with other opportunities. While serving as an officer in the 82nd Airborne Division, I knew many soldiers who fell victim to such ``contractual plans.'' In my case, I fell for the sales pitch because those agents selling the programs encouraged one of my fellow soldiers to invite me to a presentation. That program included a respected veteran who could show up on post without the post commander's permission. I did not make the decision because I was a financial expert, because I was not, I made the decision because a retired servicemember, whom I respected, working as a salesman, presented this, and he was using referrals from other servicemembers who he convinced it was a good thing. Because of these types of selling practices, I am pleased to report that today the House will be voting on this reintroduced, bipartisan legislation, H.R. 458, which will protect those preserving our freedom from some unnecessary, high-cost financial products. This piece of legislation would clarify that State insurance regulators have jurisdiction over insurance sales on military bases within their States. Also, it would ban the sale of contractual mutual funds and require that our military personnel hear about government life insurance programs before buying private life insurance. This bill would also allow our military post commanders to ban unscrupulous agents from their bases and posts and forward a list of these banned agents to the Department of Defense, and the DOD would compile lists and send them to State departments of insurance for further investigation. We cannot allow these abusive practices to continue. We must not ask the men and women of our armed services to make sacrifices for our security without doing all that we can to protect their financial futures. You may be pleased to know that in the 108th Congress, this purpose-driven piece of legislation passed overwhelmingly with a vote of 396-2. During this Congress, the Committee on Financial Services reported this bill to protect our servicemen and -women by unanimous vote. This overwhelmingly bipartisan census is the result of strong leadership by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and subcommittee chairman on capital markets, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), who led our investigation into abusive practices and bad products. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), who worked closely together on the reporting requirements, are to be thanked, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for ensuring appropriate SEC oversight of broker-dealer practices on military posts. Also, I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) for working on new requirements for high-cost lending. Their hard work and bipartisan leadership is well reflected in the legislation. Today, I urge my colleagues in the 109th Congress to support this bipartisan bill and vote ``yes'' on the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act and protect our military from these predatory financial products and sales practices. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his remarks and also heartily agree and hope that the Senate will pass this bill and take it up in an aggressive manner. I thank all the members of the Committee on Financial Services for their support on both sides of the aisle. It was truly a bipartisan effort.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 458.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding. I believe that we have much to be pleased about; and contrary to the obstinate obstructionism of the far left, much is being done. There is a lot of talk about how Republicans and Democrats cannot seem to agree on anything, and I do not think that portrays an accurate picture of the work that is being done in the 109th Congress. So far we have seen several significant pieces of legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. We have watched as a significant number of Democrats have broken ranks to support business and family- friendly legislation. So what have we been spending our time on? For starters, we have given a helping hand to small businesses by passing class action reform, a permanent repeal to the death tax, and a comprehensive energy policy, all of which contribute to the overall good health of our economy. More importantly, these measures will help create jobs. Americans want to work. Americans want to earn a paycheck and want to feel like they have contributed to our part of the world. We in Congress can help Americans do that by continuing to support and pass legislation that creates jobs. Consider this: the energy policy will create 40,000 new construction jobs by building about 27 large clean-coal plants. That will benefit the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Ohio Valley, workers, suppliers, and also manufacturers and energy producers. It will create 12,000 full-time permanent jobs related to plant operations, and the legislation allows for increased natural gas exploration and development that will create jobs and provide more than $500 million in increased revenue for our economy. The comprehensive energy policy passed with the support of 41 Democrats who believe more in creating jobs and establishing an energy policy than playing petty politics. Let us also consider the permanent repeal of the death tax which passed with the support of 42 Members of the Democratic Party. They voted to allow small businesses and family farmers to keep jobs and our dollars in communities, rather than sending them to bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. There is the highway bill that will create more than 47,000 new jobs for every $1 billion invested in our country's transportation system. Not only does this create jobs, but it increases road safety so that our families and everyone else who travels them can be assured of a safer ride. And 198 Democrats supported this legislation. The minority leader did not, despite the fact that that bill alone will lay a tremendous foundation for future growth and future economic development throughout this land. Mr. Speaker, 71 Members of the Democratic Party joined with us to pass the Gang Deterrence and Protection Act of 2005, again without the strength or support of their leadership. Gangs are increasingly becoming a problem in nearly every community in the Nation, and we are starting to hear disturbing whispers about gangs that regularly bring illegal immigrants into this country to boost their gang membership and may be teaming up with terror cells to smuggle in terrorists. This is a serious threat to our national security that we must address. But what can we expect from our Democratic leadership that continues to insult and denigrate our troops and the mission of our military, those who serve on the front lines? So we continue to be joined by rank-and-file Democrats, like the 54 Members who helped us pass the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, the 42 Members who helped us pass the Border Security Act, and the 122 Democrats who helped us pass the Continuity in Congress Act. Moreover, 143 Democrats joined with us to support our troops at the tip of the spear, fighting the war on terror to protect our Nation and keep our communities and our homeland safe. They made sure that they ensured our troops have the resources and tools they need to fight and win this war on terror. Contrary to what the liberal media implies, there is strong bipartisan work in Congress; and there is a lot being accomplished. It is just too bad that the Democratic leadership continues being obstinate and obstructive when there is so much at stake for our future, our continuing economic well-being, the security of our homeland, and the security and jobs of ordinary Americans who depend upon us to pass commonsense, reasonable legislation. As a joint team, we are doing our part and we are getting some great help teaming with rank-and-file Democrats. It is too bad the liberal minority leader does not want to join her own colleagues who did the right thing in passing helpful and progressive legislation.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of William H. Goetz, who, after 46 years of service to the City of Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, has announced his retirement from public service. Bill Goetz' career began in 1964 when he began serving on the City Council of South Fort Mitchell until that city merged with Fort Mitchell in 1967. He continued to serve as a council member for a combined total of 18 years, until 1981 when he was elected mayor. William Goetz was mayor of Fort Mitchell from 1982 until April of 1993 when he was appointed city administrator and held that position for 12 years, until announcing his recent retirement. Mr. Goetz has also served the city throughout his career as a member and an officer of numerous local and State organizations, including serving as president of the Municipal Government League of Northern Kentucky, president of the Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission, chairman of the board of the Kentucky Municipal Risk Management Association, and president of the Kentucky League of Cities, a great record of public service. Mr. Goetz has shown a devotion to employee relations and spearheaded efforts to improve employee benefits, which in turn allows the city to retain its seasoned employees, a great workforce with a long history of good service. A devoted family man, Bill Goetz spends much of his free time with a large, extended family cheering on the Cincinnati Reds and the Cincinnati Bengals football team. The retirement of William Goetz after over four and a half decades of public service will result in his being greatly missed by elected officials, employees, residents, longtime associates and friends of the city. He is a consummate professional who has always been a pleasure to work with, held a wealth of knowledge, demonstrated a will to help others and a will to continually serve the community. I am sure that that will continue long into the future. Thank you, Bill, for your service.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I speak not simply as a Member of Congress, but as a former enlisted soldier and military officer. I find myself somewhat dismayed that we have to spend time here today debating an amendment that would tell our enemies when our forces are going to withdraw from Iraq. This amendment is tantamount to posting a billboard saying, ``We will be gone by 5 o'clock Friday. If you wait until 6 o'clock, you can perform a murderous rampage through this growing democracy and terrify and intimidate the people back into living under a despotic regime.'' I respect the gentlewoman's passionate declarations regarding tolerance, diversity, and the rights of women, all of which would be ruthlessly, violently, and murderously suppressed if we were to leave at this time, something I am sure she would not want to see happen. Some might argue that this amendment does not set a timetable, but rather states that Congress just wants to see a plan. The amendment, some would argue, is innocuous. I cannot stress enough how damaging this amendment would be, if it passes, to our troops, to our national security, and also to the Iraqi democracy. Our troops in the field look to us for strength and solid, confident, unwavering leadership. If this passes, they would instead see a government that does not possess the fortitude to hold the course and finish the job. If this passes, their families would see a Congress that cares more for timelines and wordy resolutions than it does for the safety of their loved ones. We also need to understand how others will see this around the world. If this passes, the Iraqis, who every day put their lives on the line to form security forces and battle terrorists in their streets and in their neighborhoods, would see a military that is not committed to training them to defend themselves. They would see an America that broke its promise to walk with them to democracy and independence. If this passes, the world would see a country that takes no pride in its role in establishing a free Iraq, one that confirms the lies of the terrorists that we are weak and lack the fortitude and resolve to finish this mission. Are we going to let less than 1 percent of the Iraqi population dictate our course and the course of the Iraqi people? I say no. Our enemies would stand up if this passes and cheer the moment it is passed because they would know that we will desert the Iraqi people who have invested their blood to defeat. Mr. Chairman, we will not abandon a people who have so willingly given of themselves for the dream that we can help them achieve. Mohandas Gandhi said, ``The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.'' The people have democracy in their hearts. They can feel it within their grasp. They can look up and see it shining near them. We just have to stand and give them a hand to reach for it. It is all the more distressing to me that we would consider this amendment so close to Memorial Day, a day when we honor the courage and the valor of our veterans, especially those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. We can all sleep better at night because of the blood shed by ordinary heroes who believe their government supported them and believe they were doing the right thing. I recently spent 3 days visiting with numerous units of the United States Special Operations Command. Their valor, their commitment to protecting our freedom is insulted by bringing forth this amendment so close to Memorial Day. I ask my colleague to join me in opposing this amendment in honor of those who have gone before us and in honor of those whose names we do not yet know, but will learn as we read of their sacrifice. Let our foes understand one thing. Our exit strategy from Iraq is simply this: winning the war on terror. We must hold firm to the course and be resolved in our determination to win this fight. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand with us today and reaffirm our commitment to our troops, to their families, to our country, to the Iraqis and to our enemies that we will not retreat in the face of this evil.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the inadequacy of funds appropriated for the construction and repair of our lock and dam system. First, I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their work on the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Their efficient and bipartisan work is commendable. This bill is a significant step in the right direction. However, the funding levels to maintain our working waterways remain insufficient. Freight transportation on our Nation's waterways is essential to the health of our economy. In 2003 the total waterborne commerce in the United States accounted for more than 2.3 trillion short tons. This system is the fundamental backbone of our energy industry and waterways carry 20 percent of America's coal, enough to produce 10 percent of all electricity used in the United States annually. Almost one-third of the total tonnage transported over water is petroleum and petro-chemical products. A functioning waterway network is also essential to our farmers. Sixty percent of all U.S. grain exports travel our inland waterways, and their ability to use our waterways is an essential component for the price competitiveness for our farmers in the international market. The waterway transportation industry is a cost-effective and environmentally friendly component of our inter-modal freight system. A single towboat can move the same amount of cargo as 180 rail cars or 1,440 trucks. One does not require an environmental science degree to understand the pollution impact benefit of numbers like that. The lock and dam systems are the keys to the viability of our waterway network. The infrastructure on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers is well beyond its design life. This network is hindered by deterioration, unreliability, and inefficiency. Waterway transportation is paralyzed when locks fail or are closed. Repeated congressional neglect of sufficient funding levels in the operations and maintenance, general investigations and construction accounts has resulted in exponential increases in unscheduled lock closures. Since 1991 we have experienced a 110 percent increase in closure hours. The closure of a single lock creates a ripple effect that affects the entire system. Over the last 2 years, closures on the Ohio River have cost the Nation's economy incalculable millions of dollars. Last year the Corps of Engineers was forced to close the McAlpine Lock and Dam. During that 2-week period, traffic on the Ohio River was effectively halted. The closure was announced roughly 2 months ahead of time. In anticipation of the closure, a West Virginia aluminum company whose supply was dependent on the river network began laying-off employees. The most recent closure of the Greenup Lock and Dam cost waterways operators $12 million in lost business. Utility companies incurred $15 million in costs to make last-minute alternate arrangements to keep power plants online. I assure my colleagues that the closure cost our economy significantly more than $27 million. I am pleased that this appropriations bill provides full and efficient funding for the McAlpine Lock and Dam project in fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations bill does not include any funding for the Greenup Lock and Dam. The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized the Greenup Lock and Dam project. The Greenup Lock and Dam is approaching the same level of disrepair I described with respect to the McAlpine Lock and Dam. 73.7 million tons of commerce worth almost $9.6 billion transited the Greenup Lock in 2001. Sixty-two percent of that tonnage was coal. By 2010, the annual tonnage is expected to exceed 91 million tons. The 2000 Interim Feasibility Report recommended that the Greenup Lock and Dam project be complete by 2008. Because this appropriations bill does not include any funds for the Greenup Lock and Dam, no work will be accomplished on that project for an entire year. Every year of insufficient funding results in increased risk of closures and makes the entire project more expensive.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Ethics. The principles of honor and morality. The accepted rules of conduct. The moral principles of an individual. Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress recently passed its 100-day mark, and I would like to reflect on the progress we have made under the strong leadership of the Republican Party to create jobs, to strengthen the economy, support our troops, and to protect our borders. And we have done this with strong bipartisan support as wiser, calmer heads have prevailed on the other side of the aisle. The energy bill, supported by 41 Democrats. This bill will create nearly half a million new jobs in the manufacturing, construction, agriculture and technology sectors by reducing our dependency on foreign oil while exploring domestic sources and alternative energy sources. This was opposed by the minority leader. Class action reform, supported by 73 Democrats. This will unclog overused courts, end the harassment of local businesses by stopping predatory forum shopping by some trial attorneys and will protect consumers with a consumer class action bill of rights. Small businesses pay an average of $88 billion each year on lawsuits and this cost is simply passed on to consumers. This money could be much better spent growing businesses and creating jobs. This bill was opposed by the minority leader. Permanent repeal of the death tax, supported by 42 Democrats. The death tax is the leading cause of dissolution for most small businesses. Seventy percent of businesses do not make it past the first generation because of death tax rates. According to one small business survey, more than 80 percent of small businesses spend $25,000 annually on attorney-consultant fees and life insurance premiums in an attempt to avoid the crushing blow of the death tax. Again, this money could be much better spent growing businesses and creating jobs. This was opposed by the minority leader. The Border Security Act, supported by 42 Democrats. This will implement a much-needed national standard for driver's license requirements and strengthen our borders so that those who intend to do us harm find it harder to enter our country. This was opposed by the minority leader. Thank goodness for the moderates in the Democratic Party who are willing to put aside partisan bickering and work together to get things done for America. The minority leader's continued opposition tactics more closely resemble the pirates of the South Seas who hijacked commerce and progress and accomplished absolutely nothing in the long run. What a shame.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, as a father with four daughters, the safety and well-being of young women are among my absolute priorities. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is not a bill that affects a minor's right to have an abortion. It is a bill that protects young women from being pressured into having an abortion. The legislation requires that abortion providers provide 24-hour notice to one of the minor's parents or legal guardians before the procedure is performed. Abortion is already taking one life. We have a duty to protect the lives of the young girls forced to have these procedures. Kentucky is among the Commonwealths and States that have parental involvement laws for minors seeking an abortion. An overwhelming majority of Americans support these laws, and parents, unlike those taking a young girl over State lines for the procedures, have the girl's best interests at heart. The decision to end the life of an unborn child is not one that should be made by a frightened young girl forced into a clinic. Too often the men transporting the girls are either abusive boyfriends or men who have committed rape and are trying to dispose of the evidence. These predators should not be given the opportunity to circumvent State law and circumvent a girl's parents. The House has passed legislation similar to this in the past, and we find ourselves here again supporting a bill that will protect young women. Officials must obtain parental notification before dispensing aspirin to minors and before taking students on field trips. States require written parental consent before a minor can get a tattoo or body piercing. But our current laws allow a young girl to be taken across the State lines for an abortion without notifying her parents. This is despicable. It is dangerous. And it should be stopped. I urge my colleagues to join me to pass the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act so that we can protect young girls and involve their parents or legal guardians in decisions of life or death.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, Webster's Dictionary defines hypocrisy as a false pretension to personal qualities or principles not actually possessed. Politicize is defined as to make the subject a political discussion or dispute. Progress is defined as moving forward, advancing, developing. Now, of those three words, I can pick out two that occur regularly in this Chamber as the minority party perfects its blocking maneuvers. Unfortunately, it is not progress. Let us talk about hypocrisy. Four Members of the minority party took the same trip with the foreign agent that the Democrats keep crowing that the majority leader took. Another Member of the minority party filed travel papers clearly stating that a lobbyist paid for her trip, but then corrected the papers after reporters asked about them and chalked it up to human error. Yet the minority leader continues to insist that the ethics problems her party has trumped up is a Republican issue. I think that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, lest their own walls begin to crack. The minority leader's staff has not properly disclosed their own travel 12 times. A Democrat member of the ethics committee reported that a registered lobbyist paid for a trip she took to Puerto Rico. Two other Democrats did not even disclose that they went on the same trip. The minority whip took ten trips paid for by private parties that he never disclosed. If you listen closely, you will hear the tinkling clatter of cracked glass falling on the ground outside the minority leader's office. It is regrettable that the shameless hypocrisy of the liberal wing of the minority party in this Chamber chose to politicize the ethics committee. The reasons for doing this are simple: The liberal wing of the minority party knows that they have no agenda, no ideas, and frankly no leadership. So they are striking out against a successful majority leader who has brought forth an agenda, continues to offer ideas, and continues to lead his party. The liberal wing of the minority party, still stinging from their losses in November, especially in the great State of Texas, are going after the majority leader. He must be doing something right to account for all the vitriolic slander aimed at him. The liberal wing of the minority party had to create a distraction in hopes that the country would not notice that the Republicans were busy passing bipartisan legislation to create jobs, to help small businesses, to strengthen our borders, and craft a comprehensive energy policy. So what do we do now? The minority party will not let the ethics committee meet so the majority leader can clear his name. For the good of the House, the ethics process has to be above partisan politics. The Republicans have been willing throughout these long months of blustering from the obstructionist party to work towards a solution for the ethics committee to do its work. Maybe returning us to the rules of the previous Congress will be acceptable to them, maybe not. I guess we will find out as the minority leader is sweeping up the broken glass resulting from her shattered strategy of personal attacks, personal destruction, and personal slander.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Villa Madonna Academy of Villa Hills, Kentucky, on its forthcoming centennial anniversary on May 14, 2005. Villa Madonna Academy carries a long, distinguished reputation of preparing students to respect themselves and others, to have a sense of self-discipline, to accept personal responsibility for their attitudes and actions, and to dedicate themselves to academic excellence and lifelong learning. Villa Madonna Academy has demonstrated its academic distinction by being the only greater Cincinnati-northern Kentucky area high school to receive designation, under two separate criteria, as a U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon School of Excellence two consecutive years in 2002 and 2003. Villa Madonna Academy's partnership with the nearby Benedictine Sisters of St. Walburg Monastery provides opportunities for area youth to participate in a variety of sports activities and be outstanding neighbors in our community. Once again, I want to congratulate the students, teachers and alumni of the Villa Madonna Academy on its centennial anniversary and to thank them for being such fine individuals and stewards of our community.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to assume the time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it may come as a surprise to the minority leader and her liberal followers in this Chamber to learn that when I am back in the 4th District of Kentucky I am not asked why I support the majority leader. I am asked why the liberal Democrats insist on obstructing progress in the House. My constituents want to know why the so-called progressive party opposes legislation to create jobs, to lower the cost of health care, to secure our borders, to fortify our military and to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And now my constituents want to know why the liberal Democrats will not let the majority leader appear before the ethics committee to clear his name. It appears to my constituents that the liberals are afraid the majority leader, a man who does not stand in violation of any law, will clear his name. And then what happens? The minority leader and her followers will have to explain why they wasted America's time assassinating the character of the majority leader rather than working in Congress to help our country. I think the answer is already clear.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his aggressive and energetic leadership in the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services. In the 20 years that he has served in the House, he has seen the end of the Cold War, of one dramatically large threat replaced by an even more pernicious threat with the rise of global terror and asymmetric threats. This is a decisive time in our history, and it is important that we stand together as a people. I regret the occasional rhetoric that we hear even in this body that tears down the efforts of our leaders, of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to effectively carry out their mission. But there is also a mission at home that we have. As the dynamics of the threats to the United States have changed, it intruded upon our lives on September 11, the protection of our homeland, of our communities, of our children and our families. It is a critical, critical priority. It is now a special opportunity to introduce a distinguished member of law enforcement who is also now a distinguished Member in this body from the State of Washington. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), who has established a great record of persistence, the ultimate captor with a great team of law enforcement people of the Green River Killer, who also brings profound insights into law enforcement and port security, homeland security, domestic law enforcement and is now adding great value to the entire people of the United States here in the House. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his profound words. No more powerful words can be spoken than those of a mother who has lost a son, whose blood was shed literally to protect our freedoms, the lives of his fellow men. In the words of our Lord, We share no greater love as a person than he who lays down his life for his friends.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this special order.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting time in the history of the United States, in the history of the world, and in the advancement of freedom. This afternoon a member of minority made a statement that this war was not a war of choice. Contrary to that opinion, which certainly one has a right to share in this body, I would remind all Members of this House and the people that this was in fact a war that was chosen by Osama bin Laden and even before that by people like Saddam Hussein, those who have subjugated and terrorized their people for decades and even generations. Osama bin Laden turned his hatred on America after we responded to the request of the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. His aggression was one of the key sparks in the current activities that we find ourselves engaged in right now. This is a decisive time. In fact, we face the most serious threat to our freedoms and our liberties that we have faced since the end of the Second World War. We are fighting an enemy who has proven it will use whatever violent means necessary to further its cause. Indeed, we are not going to lose because of military strength, but we would lose only if the people of the United States have a loss of resolve. My encouragement is to stay the course. As we see the development over the past several months around the world there are many, many things to be hopeful for. We recoil in horror at the report of suicide bombers and strolling into crowded markets or onto packed buses and detonating themselves. Are they primarily focusing on our soldiers? No. The preponderance of causalities are attacks on their own people. In fact, this is not an insurgency in the classic sense. It is led by frankly a group of thugs, people filled with hatred, bitterness, criminals by any measure of merit, killing innocent men, women and children. We watch in stunned belief when such a terror group announces it has taken hostage Americans or others who are innocent, working in Iraq peacefully to make it a safe place. A place where people can wake up in the morning, go to work, provide for their families, and then come home for a peaceful dinner, which so many of us, the vast and overwhelming majority of citizens in the United States, enjoy. But our hearts swell glancing at pictures of the 8 million Iraqis who risked their lives to vote for a better way of life, one that does not include violence and brutal dictators. Every person who had the courage in his or her hearts to dip his or her finger in the purple ink on January 30 to vote in Iraq's first democratically held elections in decades, took a courageous stand for freedom and liberty and we applaud that. I proudly joined my colleagues yesterday to pass the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Budget which we approved 388 to 43. The supplemental provides for $76.8 billion in defense spending for pay, benefits, supplies and equipment for our troops because we will assure that our troops have the training, the tools and the equipment that they need to carry on to victory in this war. We needed to move quickly to secure this money and we could not afford to wait for the budget process to wind its way to a finish. The military has told us they needed the funds by May 1 and Congress just cannot move that quickly on the entire defense appropriations bill. The supplemental is money well spent to show our soldiers that we fully support them and that we are doing everything we can to provide for their safety. It shows our commitment to both our allies and also we show our enemies that we mean business, that we will continue to fight. We will pursue them in every corridor where they exist and, finally, win this war on terror. This is not a fight we will lose, again, I reiterate because of military strength or lack of it. It is a fight that we can only lose if we choose to walk away, and we must not walk away. This is a revolutionary time throughout the world. In the entire latitude 10-40 window, the doors of freedom are opening for the first time in decades, for the first time in history in some cases. We are seeing the fruit of the valor of our men and women in uniform in the developments in Lebanon, the developments in Egypt, the developments in Saudi Arabia. It is an exciting time. It is exciting to see the values of the United States being carried forward, not being imposed but being embraced. Those are not a value of culture but a value of freedom and liberty, the dignity of the individual, the rights of every human being to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am proud of what the Iraqi people are doing after the bombings that have come on recruiting stations, on stores, on schools, on polling places. What we are seeing happening is an exciting thing, and that is the next morning the recruits are coming back. The next morning the security forces are coming to work. The next morning the police are on patrol. They are beginning to stand up and it is imperative that we stand with them. We will continue to be strong and defend liberty so that other people may have the same freedoms that we enjoy. I want to thank my distinguished colleagues who are here today with me to discuss the supplemental, the impact that it will have on our continued war on terror, one that we will see all the way through to victory. Mr. Speaker, right now I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State and also salute all members of law enforcement, our fire, EMS and first responders who are working literally around the clock to make this Nation safe. Indeed, I want to salute our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. My former comrades, classmates, former comrades when I was an enlisted soldier and those who I went to the military academy with and served on active duty with, who are still serving this country today. I applaud your efforts. We love you and we thank you for the sacrifices that you are making to give us a safer tomorrow, a safer Nation, a safer future and hope for the world. In our have it now, you deserve a break, have it your way society we can easily forget that all true freedom came at a great price. It came with persistence. It came with faith. It came with hope and real hope is not what we see now. Hope is something that we do not yet have, that we are waiting for, that we are pursuing aggressively with great hunger, and that freedom ultimately, as all true freedom came, with the shedding of blood, the willingness to lay down our lives for our friends. In the prior generations, that has been done willingly, acceptingly, and now we have a great generation that has raised up to defend this Nation to prepare and protect this country for our children and grandchildren as they come forward. There is a liberal intellectual elite in this country that say the people of the Arabic world are not capable of embracing freedom. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. As one who has learned to love the Arabic culture over the last 27 years, I have seen in ordinary men and women that spark of desire for freedom, a desire to be free, a desire to give their children hope and opportunity and freedom and to grow up in a safe community, to be able to pass on the tenets of their faith, to live with a future that is secure, a future that has promise. Let me share with you another perspective, another view. I want to share some excerpts from an e-mail that I received from my neighbor down the street. His name is Colonel Charlie Waylon, and he is a reservist. Working as an emergency room physician, he answered the call after September 11 to join a special forces unit first in the liberation of Afghanistan. Then he came back again in Operation Iraqi Freedom and is now on his third tour in theater, willingly serving, making a difference in the lives of our soldiers and Marines but also making a difference in the lives of the Iraqi people. He is a colonel, and his son reports soon to Fort Benning, Georgia, for infantry basic training. They, along with the rest of our soldiers, are constantly in my prayers and my wife Pat's prayers. It is e-mails like this that I receive on a regular basis that convince me that we are doing the right thing, and not only that, that we are winning. Before my friend went to Iraq, he was asked three questions by one of his neighbors: Are we winning? Is it worth the price? Are we accomplishing anything? Having spent some time now in theater for the third time, he says the answers to all three are an unequivocal yes. Let me say that again. It is an unequivocal yes. What gives him that authority to speak is his experience on the ground, having seen that situation develop over time. First, let us focus on the big picture. We are not engaged in a war in Iraq itself, the main war on the ground. We are engaged in a war of world views, one that does not value freedom, one that values hatred and closed societies over openness and freedom and true discourse; one that does not value the true dignity of the individual, the preciousness of all life but discards that for the sake of a theology of hatred. It does not represent the center of mass of people in that part of the world. The fact that the Iraqis would rise up and go to the polls in numbers greater than turnout in elections in the United States of America says the man and woman on the street cares deeply, deeply about embracing this opportunity for freedom. Who are we to walk away from them in their time of need right now? We are now fighting a counterinsurgency, and it has two goals. One, it wants to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iraq which has just held its first session, and try to run the United States out of the country. What needs to be clear is that we are not alone in facing this enemy. 70 percent of the eligible voters in Iraq turned out for the election. Outside the Sunni Triangle that number approached 85 percent. In my district in the 2002 election only 38 percent of the registered voters turned out to vote. Who are we to criticize those efforts of those valiant people? We all mourned when we heard that a bomb exploded outside an Iraqi police training center and killed 120 recruits. But if we can find one positive aspect in that needless tragedy, that atrocity, it is that 120 Iraqis felt safe enough to even sign up to become police officers; that they had courage to invest their lives, to lay their lives down, to put them on the line to protect their families, their communities and ultimately their nation. And the exciting thing is that the men come back the next day. They come back to serve because they understand what is at stake. Moderate Shiite clerics are not asking us to leave Iraq. The Kurds are not asking us to leave, and the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are not asking us to leave. They want us to stay, to stand by them while they train up, while they become strong and stabilize their own country and bring forth their flavor in terms of their culture of the freedoms that they are taking hold of. Let us look at what has been achieved so far by those detractors of the policy of this country who have said that this war was a war of choice. It was imposed upon us, I might remind them. And I would also state, Mr. Speaker, that since in the last year Libya has denounced weapons of mass destruction and opens its doors to the United Nations weapons inspectors, it has opened its doors to Western trade, a desire to become part of the community of nations, and it has renounced terrorism. A former perpetrator of terrorism has repented of that and now are beginning to walk in a new direction, seeing the inevitability of the rise of freedom in the Middle East. In the fall of 2004 Afghanistan held free and open elections. Women who under the rule of the Taliban could barely leave their homes walked freely to polling places and voted. In January Palestine elected a national leader in a United Nations supervised election in which women also voted. We are hopeful that the situation with the Palestinian people will lead to a free government, a peaceful government that can coexist alongside the democracy in Israel. Also in January the Iraqis held their unprecedented election, and again, women voted in overwhelming numbers. One of my West Point classmates shared with me in a confidential e- mail his perspective on seeing women coming to the polls to vote. He saw elderly women, young mothers with their children clinging to them standing, ignoring the ordnance flying about them, who had the courage to take hold of this once in a lifetime, once in a generation, once in a century opportunity to make a difference, to transform what had been an oppressive atrocity ridden, closed society in which the individual did not matter, but only to feed an appetite of megalomaniacal power of a dictator. That has been cast down. These people are seizing that opportunity. The unfolding events in Lebanon and Syria's declaration that it will begin withdrawing from Lebanon is an outstanding indicator that as we stay the course and we link arms with freedom loving peoples in that part of the world, that we will see peaceful resolution to the challenges that we face, and these terrorists will be repudiated for the inhumane individuals that they are. My friend ends his e-mail by stating that it is not just men and women who are helping lead their countries toward a brighter future. Women who spent years living under dictatorial regimes that demanded their silence are stepping up and playing a major role in the spread of democracy. He says, and I quote, I want women fully enfranchised throughout this part of the world. I want them voting. I want them involved in government because in my opinion, he states, if they are, this will be a safer, saner and less militant world. As we transition to other topics relating to this, I would like to introduce a distinguished colleague of mine, a member of my entering class in the Congress. He is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul). He brings a very pertinent record of professional achievement into this body, and can speak with an authority on a wide variety of issues related to the global war on terror. Prior to being elected to the United States Congress, Mr. McCaul served as an Assistant United States Attorney whose charge was counterterrorism investigation and prosecution in the great State of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

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

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I found the rhetoric on the budget particularly interesting over the course of a wide variety of issues. One near and dear to my heart is the issue of veterans care. I can speak to this issue with a great deal of authority that very few of my colleagues in this body can as a member of the American Legion, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division Association, a member of the Army Ranger Association and a member of the Association of Graduates of the United States Military Academy. Being both a former enlisted solider and an officer who served here and abroad, I am concerned that we keep our commitment to our veterans, those who have laid their lives on the line and in many cases borne a great price to pay for the freedoms that we have here to have this dialogue. Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of misinformation that is going around the public right now, I found this unfortunately being passed out to veterans in my own district, that completely disregards the facts in favor of what I would consider a shameless play at political power. The facts speak to themselves. As a former numbers person, I would like to point out that in the chart that we referenced, that spending per veteran has increased dramatically. Indeed, total veterans spending in the 2006 budget is $68.9 billion. There are considerable monthly payments for veterans, and the budget provides $31.7 billion, an increase of $877 million, for veterans' medical care and other discretionary spending. These increases in this budget carry on a commitment to our Nation's veterans that, over the past 11 years, has been reflected in veterans spending since 1995 when Republicans took control of Congress. We can see that the rhetoric from the past is hollow from when there was a Democratic majority in this body and also a Democratic administration. What we have seen since Republicans took control of the House is a steady increase, particularly after President Bush was elected, in making sure that our veterans' needs were cared for. Spending for veterans' medical care has increased 85 percent, from $16.2 billion to $29.9 billion. Indeed, the number of veterans receiving care has increased from 2.5 million veterans to 4.8 million, a 92 percent increase. The facts speak for themselves. And, again, the shameless rhetoric is hollow. Education benefits, under the Montgomery GI bill, have more than doubled during this same period and total per veteran spending has increased by nearly 103 percent. I respect our national leadership. I respect the leadership of our party, the leadership in this Congress who has led the way, not with hollow words, but with straightforward actions to take care of the veterans in this United States who I am proud to represent. Since we took control of Congress in 1995, we have made tremendous strides in improving benefits for our Nation's 25 million veterans, and we will continue to do that into the future with new strides in technology, reaching out to cover those who have legitimate needs who have served our country and served in harm's way. Moreover, the Republican Congress has expanded eligibility for medical care in 1996 and 1999. That has increased the number significantly. In the end, this budget provides significant relief for veterans who have served. I am proud to support it. I stand with our leadership; I stand with the veterans in this Congress who are rightfully supporting this budget.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the hunger for freedom is a deep yearning in the hearts of all people. Freedom from oppressive regimes, freedom from living in fear, and freedom from an invasive hatred that turns neighbor against neighbor. We watched 8 million Iraqis risk their lives to vote for their own government, and we witnessed Palestinians choose a course of diplomacy with Israel rather than continuing a course of terror. In Lebanon, we are seeing the seeds of liberty being sown as people take to the streets seeking the power to control their own lives. Democracies are not born overnight. For our own security and future, we must be resolved in our support for people who want a governing structure rooted in personal liberty and that compliments their own country's culture. I take heart in believing that we are pursuing the right course of action as I remember the brave faces of Iraqis smiling behind a purple finger raised in defiance of terror, oppression and hatred.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the fact that America is a land of vision and opportunity. My wife's grandparents came through Ellis Island and began literally with nothing. By the second generation, both had become professionals and had made a great impact on their local economies, passed that on to the third generation with their children, adding value, working to create jobs in the long term. I think the exciting thing of the values of this Nation is the people who have come here from every ethnic background, from every nation on this Earth. The great diversity has one thing in common, that is, a unity of vision, of opportunity, of purpose that can be accomplished when we are part of something bigger than ourselves. When I look at the numbers right now in this Nation from an unemployment standpoint, we stand at 5.2 percent, which is one of the lowest unemployments in the industrialized world, particularly in light of the fact that we are involved in a war that was forced upon us by global terrorists. When I look at the challenges that this Nation has faced, there has been a great turnaround during the last 4 years. More than that, when I look to my own district, to the Fourth District of Kentucky, and the tremendous steps forward that have been made in the manufacturing economy, that have been made in technology and in the creation of jobs and in the development of industry and health sciences, I am excited about our future. I am excited about the potential for our young people to move forward and have the opportunity to create their own future, to create jobs, to start small businesses, to follow in the opportunity that I had when I finished my military service. After a time in industry, I chose to pursue that vision to start my own company and then end up helping other companies create jobs. I think one of the great things that we see a need for right now is to continue to remove the burden of regulations, to remove the burdensome Tax Code, to remove the impediments to individuals at every level of our economy, from starting their own businesses, from creating jobs in our communities, that will stay in our communities, to keep capital investment in those communities. I think there are several steps that are important. First, we need to bring about meaningful tax reform. I believe that the tax cuts that were enacted in the last Congress need to be made permanent so that people can keep more of what they earn. I think it is important that the so-called death tax be completely eliminated. The reason why is it has nothing to do with the super-rich. It has to do with jobs in our communities, local farmers, small family farmers, people that own family businesses that have gone on for generations, to make sure that they have the opportunity to keep those jobs in the community. That is a tax that is pernicious. Indeed, what it does is it hurts the very people it is intended to help because it removes the capital from our local economy. Another thing that is necessary for us to do is to make sure that small business owners have the flexibility to overcome a burdensome Tax Code. If they see the opportunity in a good year to take advantage of capital investment to improve their competitiveness, to increase jobs in the local community or protect the jobs that they have, they should have that flexibility; and I would like to see the ability to expense capital investment made permanent rather than renewing it as we have been doing over the past 18 years. Education is an important area as well. We need to open up the tremendous opportunities to entrepreneurship that we have in our economy. I met recently with a new division of Northern Kentucky University, a pioneer in the University of Kentucky system. They have their own school of entrepreneurship now to encourage this creation of jobs in the local economy, to show people how they can start a business, how they can add value, how they can help people create a nest egg and a job that will last for the long term and create other jobs that will strengthen our community. It is also important that we continue to invest in our university systems and vocational and technical education. The reason for this, working with public-private partnerships, working closely with our local communities from the Federal Government is to assure that we are staying on the cutting edge of technology innovation, looking for opportunity for the long term. In addition, it is also important that we look at reforms that will allow small businesses to function. We need to bring about meaningful health care reform. What does that mean? Small businesses need to have the ability to band together and form associations to reduce the cost of health care. I found in my own business that my premiums, if I had not been elected to Congress, were going to increase 50 percent, from $1,200 to $1,800 a month, just for my family and my business. That is unconscionable. We need to encourage these small businesses and enact regulations that will allow them to cover more of their employees, more of our employees in the long term. In addition to that, we need to bring about meaningful medical liability reform as part of this health care reform. The reason for that is, first of all, to stop driving our doctors out of practice in many States. For example, in Kentucky we have lost one-third of our OB- GYN doctors in the last 5 years due to medical liability costs. But at a small business and job creation level, it will be a job creator if we have some meaningful liability reforms, not only to keep our doctors but to keep the cost of health care provision low so that we could cover more of our employees and also be more competitive in the long term. In the end, there are a variety of steps that we can take. I am very excited about the potential of the American people. We have shown in a time of national adversity now that we can compete, that we can have a strong economy, that we can create jobs; and when I look at one of the largest employers in northeastern Kentucky, a very prominent steel mill that is creating jobs, that is hiring, that is competing effectively in the world economy now, I know that we are going to be successful.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I believe that our founders would stand aghast if they saw the size and the reach of the Federal Government and how it has grown over two centuries. Certainly times have changed, but the cost of government continues to rise. Archaic processes, lax accountability and a lack of connectivity, and often competing agendas on top of that, consume more and more dollars and waste untold billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. My colleagues have shared horror stories of how these dollars have been wasted, but this afternoon I would like to offer a prescription for reform. The solution is not simply removing regulations, it is not simply identifying programs where we feel pain or see pain, it is, rather, we need to change as a government, as a people, and as regulatory agencies, how we think about the spending of this money, how these processes are run and, ultimately, how the citizens of the United States are best served. King Solomon said in the Bible that there is nothing new under the sun. Successful businesses, successful service organizations have applied principles for decades that have cut billions and billions in waste. They have improved our ability to compete internationally and made many of our businesses and aid organizations the envy of the world for efficiency and for effectiveness. I might add that these are in the private sector. I think there are several steps that need to be understood, four key ones in bringing about any rational change to our government. They are simply this: we need to identify, we need to simplify, we need to accelerate, and we need to automate. To identify means simply that we need to get to reality. We need to understand where these problems are before we can make a decision about what to fix or what to change. As we have seen so many times here in Washington, knee-jerk legislation is often the reaction to a symptom rather than the root cause of our problems. Instead of helping people, it often creates problems that hurt the very ones who are intended to be helped. I believe that the old saying, ``The greatest source of inspiration is desperation,'' needs to be applied in our institutions. We need to get beyond what we think the governing process is, how we think our agencies work and understand how they really work, see what reality is and see those opportunities to take steps out of the process, time out of the process, and resources out of the process. In the end, what it will do is bring about great benefit when we get to that reality. That means simplifying. Over and over again it has been shown that if we challenge the way we think, if we challenge our assumptions, we can assure, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to spend the people's money more wisely and ultimately can increase service, increase the breadth of service and reduce costs. Our Armed Forces have shown that in the transformation they are undergoing where they are massively multiplying combat power, but keeping the size of the active military the same. The Navy has shown with its carrier task force that it can actually take a carrier task force out of operation and actually increase the ability to project combat power into a theater of operations. These principles applied there, applied in business, need to be applied to our agencies that are serving our citizens as well. Once we identify those improvements, we can accelerate them. Change will speed up. We have seen it applied in the medical arena; we have seen it applied in factories, where processes that took days and weeks can be reduced literally to hours or minutes. It gives back flexibility, it reduces the cost and the overhead that is necessary to serve people, and ultimately provides a better return to the taxpayer. Finally, once we have achieved that, it is time to automate. So many times, we have spent billions of dollars on projects, system integrations in the government that have failed, that have never been implemented because people never challenge their basic assumptions of why they were doing what they were doing, and they automated inefficient and ineffective processes. All that did to the agencies was allow them to commit error and increase waste more efficiently, which is an ironic contradiction. We have agencies that do not communicate. In the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for example, nearly 20 information systems do not communicate with each other on the tracking of aliens. This is unbelievable in an age of connectivity when international organizations have real-time information around the world. Major retail distributors can take the purchase of one single item on the other side of the world and have it documented in their system within seconds of that transaction taking place at a cash register. Likewise, we need to bring about a greater level of connectivity to reduce waste. Another benefit that would come from that is increased security as our agencies are able to share information more effectively. It also reduces error that causes increased costs and also increased anxiety and burden on American citizens who are depending on government services for their lives. I think that in the end we want to increase our capacity to serve our citizens without increasing the amount of money that is being spent. Adding more money will simply add more problems in the long run because we are not dealing with the root causes, Mr. Speaker. For example, 9 percent of the food stamp allocations or spending on food stamps are incorrect payments. Fundamentally, that is nearly $3 billion in wasted taxpayer dollars. By having some simple improvement to the process with real-time information systems, off the shelf, used today in the commercial world, we could give that $3 billion back to the taxpayers whose money it is. We also speed up the turnaround. In our district as we have inherited a great deal of Social Security claims, there is a great need and a necessity to help our senior citizens, to effectively keep our promise to them. They do not need to be standing in line or waiting for weeks or months for casework to be completed. Using state-of-the-art technology not only would we save the taxpayer money but we could serve them effectively and nearly immediately. In closing, nothing is going to change until we learn to see the ground differently. We need to observe opportunities and zero in on them, orient on the thousands and thousands of small opportunities in government to bring about improvement and change. We need to decide that we are going to exercise the will that is necessary to bring about that improvement, and then we need to act energetically, persistently, and patiently. To do otherwise assures one thing, Mr. Speaker, that is, that this problem will grow, that Federal spending will continue to grow, that the waste will continue to grow and eventually strangle the United States Government. If I were working in my former profession, helping manufacturing companies to compete, I would say that the United States Government, my client now, is sick and is filled with waste that can be taken away with simple principles applied to return to healthy agencies, healthy fiscal status, and ultimately to strengthen our agencies and our ability to serve our citizens in the long run. Little by little, we can see the same kind of effective transformation that our military has gone through, that is coming out of the Cold War era. There is nothing new here, simply applying proven principles that other institutions have applied successfully for decades.

Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. If the gentlewoman will yield further, in response to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished gentleman has a long and illustrious career of leadership advancing the values of his party. He is widely respected nationally and certainly in his home State. We have seen ample evidence of that expansion of government service to serve his constituents. I respect the gentleman's contributions to this body and its history. Yet at the same time, I think that it is important that we set aside partisan rancor. This is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem. This is an American problem. It is important that bureaucratic agendas be put aside, that party agendas, partisanship and rancor simply moving for control over debate and taking away that time for necessary dialogue be brought into the context of what the American people sent us here to do. I believe that it is important in the remainder of the time that we have before the gentleman speaks that we look at the problems that are being faced today. As you so effectively pointed out in those examples, our citizens on the street have seen over and over again examples of waste, examples of fraud, examples of abuse. Much of the waste, the majority of that waste, is not ill-intended. We have thousands and thousands of very dedicated civil servants. I have met very few in my entire career of public service, whether in the military or in government, who were not dedicated and committed and worked very hard. Rather, the issue that I was addressing, which the gentleman missed, was the issue of process, processes that have grown up, processes that are not connected, processes that do not communicate effectively. These are not partisan issues. These are simple issues of accelerating the ability to make decisions more effectively and to reduce costs. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding to me.