Butch Otter

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I submit for the Record an editorial from the Dallas Morning News and also an editorial from the Star-Telegram. A Humane End: Slaughter Prevents Wider Suffering [From the Dallas Morning News, Sept. 7, 2006] Few issues roil the emotions more than those involving the dependent and helpless. Hence, the turbulent debate over a proposal in Congress to end the legal slaughter of horses that feed overseas meat markets. It's not right to dismiss or belittle the strongly held beliefs of animal advocates on the matter. They argue that the horse is a loyal service and companion animal that should not end up on someone's dinner table. Indeed, most Americans' sensibilities align with that view. But the grisly alternative to humane slaughter is a slow, painful end for tens of thousands of castoff animals every year. In a poignant irony, major veterinary groups are lined up against a slaughter ban. They argue persuasively that enough buyers or adoptive homes couldn't be found for all horses deemed too old, unfit or expensive by their owners. Maintaining a horse for its natural life can exceed $25,000, even short of veterinary care. The federal government, despite help from rescue organizations, already fails to find homes for thousands of wild horses culled each year from herds roaming national grasslands. Think of boosting the number of unwanted animals by the 60,000 to 100,000 horses that now go to slaughter annually. That would recklessly invite widespread abandonment and starvation. Two of the nation's three horse slaughterhouses are in North Texas, the foreign-owned Dallas Crown in Kaufman and Beltex in Fort Worth. It's a closely regulated business aimed at humane treatment, from transport to euthanasia. Some slaughter opponents say a better end for unwanted horses would be veterinarian-administered euthanasia. That position ignores the pivotal issue of added cost for rendering, incineration or burial. Exported horse meat heads primarily to Europe and Asia, where no cultural taboo is attached to consumption. Top consumers are mostly developing nations with a need for added protein in the diet. Thus, the slaughtered horse makes a final contribution to the cycle of life. In this country, at least, the law seeks to guarantee a humane end, in keeping with the horse's honored place in national lore. Congress should devote its energies toward keeping things that way, thus avoiding the unwanted consequence of needless suffering.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one of my favorite subjects, and that is the Constitution of the United States. But I want to focus a little bit more today than I generally do and specifically on the 10th amendment to the Constitution. The 10th amendment to the Constitution, affectionately referred to by most everyone who really reveres the Constitution, would recognize it as the so-called ``States' rights amendment.'' Actually, Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that it was the contract between the States and the creation of the States that we know today as the Federal Government. Many folks today I believe have it wrong. They think that the Federal Government created the States, whereas, in fact, it was the original 13 States that, in union together, created the Federal Government. And it has always been my long-held belief and opinion that the created can never be greater than the creator in any sense. And so in my opportunity today, I want to remind the people of that contract between the Federal Government and the States. And it is a simple contract; so perhaps one might suggest that it was never written by a lawyer because it is only 28 words, and it says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now, I may have gotten that a little confused in my enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker; but my enthusiasm for the spirit and the heart of the 10th amendment is undiminished because it was in 1760, when King George III took over for King George II and decided to put even more restraints on the young and upcoming colonies, even more laws and even more regulations, even more taxes and confiscation of their property, it was then only some 16 years later that the 13 colonies finally said we have had enough and we are not going to absorb any more of this abuse from any king, let alone King George III. So history now pretty well has set forth in the agenda the circumstances that took place and finally, of course, after the Declaration of Independence, then after the War of Independence and the creation of the Constitution. In fact, few people realize today that the Constitution did not include what we know as the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. And it was only as a promise by the States and the Continental Congress that they would at a later time include the Bill of Rights or something to the effect of the Bill of Rights that many of the States then adopted. In fact, during the Continental Congress it was Patrick Henry that said that he refused and would refuse, and he eventually did, to sign the Constitution because he said, I smell a rat. But Lord only knows here was a gentleman that had an olfactory memory that could reach over 200 years out into the future and here we are today. But I would tell you that Patrick Henry did say that he would not sign the Constitution or agree to it unless it included a Bill of Rights, an enumeration of all the rights of man. And several folks, including one James Wilson, took that under advisement. And they came back several days later, and to the presiding officer at that time, George Washington, they said, Mr. President, we have found it unwise to enumerate all the rights of man for if in our effort to do so we should leave one out, it will have thought to be the property of government; so leave us instead, direct our labors to enumerating the powers and the authorities of government, and if it is not stated, the power and the authority does not belong then to the government. How wise that was and how wise and respectful we should be and would be today should we honor those kinds of thoughts, should we honor those kinds of limitations, because as we know, including the 10th amendment, each and every amendment of the first 10 amendments was, in fact, a limitation on government. And if you read it time and time again, it always says the Congress shall not, the government cannot, the government will not be allowed. So I commend to all those who are listening today to get the Constitution out, read those 28 words, and recognize that that is the true contract between this Federal Government in Washington, D.C. and the governments of the 50 States.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, today, we are debating H.R. 2563, a bill to provide broad authority for the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct feasibility studies of new and enhanced water storage opportunities on the Snake, Boise, and Payette Rivers in Idaho. I introduced this legislation and am working for its passage because I believe it is important to find new water resources rather than just dividing up the scarce resources we currently have. I have been told that consumptive demand in the Boise and Payette basins will increase by at least 135,000 acre feet over the next 20 years. Growing demand now is being met by increased ground water use and conservation efforts, but those are short-term responses that beg the question of future needs. We also know that most of the water supply in both basins already is allocated and there is little excess capacity to meet future demands. Further, the ability to capture and store additional water is limited by requirements for minimum fish flow, maintenance flows, flood control and annual refill of existing reservoirs. These factors make this undertaking difficult at best, but I believe it is worthwhile and necessary. Our communities, our economy and our families all depend on water to survive, grow and prosper. Deciding how to use such a rare commodity in a way that does the greatest good for the greatest number, while hewing to the principles of law and equity on which our society is based, is an enormous challenge. The task is further complicated, and brought into sharp focus, by the 6-year drought Idaho recently experienced and is seen in much of the arid West. Our energy, our economy and our environment all will depend on the ability to anticipate and prioritize future water needs. Our children, our grandchildren and generations to come all are depending on the choices we make today. Preserving water rights while providing for continued growth are a top priority of mine and I will continue to work to achieve that goal. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona. I was sitting in my office watching all these wonderful and heartrending speeches from folks about their economies and iron mills shutting down, steel mills shutting down, industries being totally lost, and now it is up to this Congress to pass through earmark appropriations in some legislative vehicles that are not the appropriate vehicle for it, which is why it is so hard for my friend from Arizona to find out where this money is going and why it is going and who asked for it. But I am reminded from time to time that this was the same Congress that has passed regulation that has prohibited us in the west, in Idaho, from harvesting trees, from mining minerals, from, in fact, earning a living or even building, as my good friend from Kentucky just said, in talking about building a whole new industry. Well, we would like that opportunity, too. In fact, we would like this Congress just to keep their promises to us when they shut down our forests and shut down the mining and halted much of the grazing on that land in Idaho and said, we will do this, we will make you PILT payments, payment in lieu of taxes. Because you have so much Federal ground in Idaho, a lot of that property does not render any taxes, and so we will make that payment for you. Well, you are about $148 million short this year alone. So I would say to these Members of Congress that have such huge hearts for their own particular little locales and their own particular little projects, that if you are going to do this, for gosh sakes, let those of us that would like to do it without all your help help ourselves.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the courageous actions of Mr. Patrick W. Mott of Rathdrum, Idaho. On February 27, 2005, Henry W. Scheller was ice fishing on North Idaho's Lower Twin Lake approximately 700 feet from the closest bank. Mr. Scheller did not realize he was on weak ice, and he fell through, plunging into the frigid lake. Unable to pull himself from the water, he began calling out for help. His calls were heard by Patrick Mott, a 65-year-old retired logger, who was working outside his lakeside home. As his wife called for help, Mr. Mott quickly gathered a metal dinghy and rope and set out on the ice to rescue the struggling Scheller. About 10 feet from Scheller the ice around Mott collapsed and he too fell into the water. Mott's attempts to pull himself out were unsuccessful, but firefighters arrived on the scene shortly after and were able to rescue Mott, then Scheller from the water. Mr. Mott returned to the bank unaided, and was uninjured. Scheller received medical attention after being safely taken to shore. Although Mr. Mott did not successfully rescue Scheller, his selfless actions are a lesson to us all. Without hesitation, Mr. Mott put himself in harm's way to come to the aid of a perfect stranger. For his heroic actions, Patrick Mott was awarded the Carnegie Medal, given to those who risk their lives while saving or attempting to save the lives of others. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the actions of Patrick Mott. May his selflessness be an example we can follow in our own lives.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we pause long enough during this important debate tonight to remember back to another time in a place not too far from this place. During the heated debate and many times rancorous discussions on their efforts to establish a government that would elevate the individual above the crown, above the prince, above the king, and above the head of state, much was said about the doubtfulness of victory and the certainty of failure. Caution was urged, voted on, and rejected. The hope and the promise, the value for the chance at being free was so strong that our Founding Fathers measured well that the risk was worth the reward. Now is our opportunity once again to revive that spirit. And in doing so, we demonstrate to ourselves, the people of the United States, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the people of the world that we are worthy of the suggestion that we are the beacon of freedom for the world and we share that light with pride, with honor, and hope. The Iraqi people who yearn for freedom, I am confident, do so with no less courage and resolve than those who so boldly signed the Declaration of Independence and at that time set this Nation on a destiny of freedom envied by all peoples of the world who suffer under the burden of tyranny. Our allies throughout the war for independence did not pack up and go home when the going got tough. They believed in us, as I believe that we should believe in the Iraqi people. They stayed the course, as I believe we should. Mr. Speaker, in his book ``The Glorious Quest,'' James R. Evans gives us all a thought that we should ponder as we approach this freedom- rendering vote. He said, ``No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United States were a failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours.'' By our actions here today, we are deciding whether or not the Iraqi people are worthy of living in freedom. This choice is ours. Those of us who will favor or deny this resolution surely decide the worth of the Iraqi people.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. In my 1 minute, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of points that were already touched on by Mr. Hastings, but are awfully important to the whole idea of the consolidation of TRACON. First off, the FAA has furnished us with rules on cost savings which are just totally unrealistic. Number two, in the Boise airport to which Mr. Hastings referred we have not only general aviation, commercial aviation and the National Guard control out of the Boise tower, but we also have the National Interagency Fire Center, which attacks the wildfires on BLM and Forest Service ground all over the West. And finally, I would say this is such a bad idea, but it would be a terrorist dream. To consolidate all of our air traffic control into one center would be a tremendous target for those folks. And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, once again I thank Mr. Hastings for his leadership on this and for the time. And I would like to offer letters from the Governor, from the National Guard Bureau and also from other interested parties for the record. Mr. Chairman, in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings, the FAA has embarked on a plan to collocate TRACON--radar--facilities from airports around the United States. My colleagues from Idaho and I have had a number of contacts and meeting with FAA on this issue--and still, there are few answers and lots of concerns about the proposed move of the only TRACON located in Idaho--Boise Airport--to collocate facilities at Salt Lake City. There are lots of reasons I could share about why this move is of concern to my constituents and I: redundancy of TRACON facilities in the vast Intermountain West, dramatic growth in the region, air space flexibility for our biggest airport, which also serves as the home to Idaho's active Air National Guard as well as the National Interagency Fire Center, which serves the whole West. But there are general concerns that I think speak to why it is important to support the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings: Poor cost analysis--limited savings: The FAA has only been able to show negligible savings with the proposed collocation. After two meetings and repeated requests for detailed cost information--to include short-term expenses and savings, as well as long-term projected costs, etc. On April 27, my delegation colleagues and I met with Administrator Blakey, at which time a rudimentary cost savings analysis was provided, claiming only $2.47 million in savings over 25 years--less than $100,000 per year. More importantly, by the FAA's own admission, this ``analysis'' does not take into account all personnel costs, such as the need to hire additional controllers due to loss of flexible scheduling, dual training and other efficiencies currently used at the Boise tower, as well as other potential cost increases. Therefore, the planned move will likely result in greater costs over that 25-year period. Poor Planning: It appears that the FAA's ``alternatives analysis'' being conducted on TRACON collocation does not have a long-range plan or vision. There is no plan on how TRACON facilities will be collocated and/or consolidated around the Northwest--let alone across the country--as they look to maximize use of their new STARS radar system. At least none has been communicated by the FAA when questions have been raised at meetings. The process, as presented by FAA staff, appears to be based solely on those projects that are currently working on getting funding or those that have funding earmarked and are ready to go to construction. In the case of Boise Airport, a much needed new air traffic control tower project has been delayed or benched after more than $16 million in earmarks have been worked on over the past 3 years by my Idaho colleagues and me. This setback will negatively impact the economic development opportunities, security and safety concerns we have expressed to the House and Senate Appropriators in support of funding for this project. Colleagues, we aren't talking about decreasing the size of government or lowering our costs here. Until FAA can articulate real cost savings and a national strategy for TRACON collocation and consolidation, we ought not go down this path any further. I urge your support for the Hastings/Wexler/Shaw/Foley Amendment. Military Division, State of Idaho, Boise, ID, January 27, 2006. Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Craig: Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the Idaho National Guard. I know you are aware of a recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposal to remote the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) at Boise Air Terminal to Salt Lake International. I would like to voice the Idaho National Guard's strong objection to this proposal. Aircrews from the Air and Army National Guard operate here on a daily basis and fly thousands of sorties each year. They are experienced at getting into and out of the airport traffic area. Controllers also gain a familiarity with an area and become extremely adept at controlling traffic within that area. The familiarity controllers have of our local area and their knowledge of our local weather phenomena allows them to provide expedited services that will not be feasible with a controller located in Salt Lake. I know of many occasions when their knowledge of the area and its weather patterns has resulted in the safe recovery of our guard airplanes and helicopters as well aircraft from Mountain Home AFB. I am also concerned that this proposed change may restrict our use of the short field approach and landing strip and that its use may be denied when other aircraft are operating on the main runways, significantly limiting our training opportunities. I am doubtful controllers located at Salt Lake will ever gain the familiarity that would allow them to provide the same exceptional service we currently enjoy. Sir, of utmost concern to me is the margin of safety that will not be possible with a controller in Salt Lake. Whether the separation is between participating traffic and our C- 130's operating on the short field, fire fighting aircraft operations or our helicopter operations, we enjoy a relationship with the TRACON that allows us to operate our military aircraft with civilian traffic simultaneously in a safe, expeditious environment. We cannot accept anything less. Finally, thanks to your great efforts, Boise will complete a new control tower within the next few years. This great addition to the airport combined with the National Guard's efforts to relocate its munitions storage area will allow for a significant growth opportunity at the airport. Attracting major flying operations in the future will depend on the ability of those aircraft to smoothly transition into and out of the airport. To remote the TRACON to Salt Lake will in all likelihood slow down the traffic flow, thus increasing operating costs and making Boise a less attractive location in which to operate. Thank you for your continued support of the National Guard and the Boise Air Terminal. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Lawrence F. Lafrenz, Major General, Commanding General.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the achievements and distinguished career of Merry Trudeau of Eagle, Idaho. Mrs. Trudeau has honorably and diligently served the people of the United States with over 30 years of faithful service to the Internal Revenue Service. Now, you might think it strange that I would stand before you today, Mr. Speaker, to praise the work of a tax collector. But the truth is, Merry has spent her entire career in what friends refer to as ``her true calling''--as an advocate for American taxpayers. She works very closely with the people in her community resolving specific problems related to the Internal Revenue Service. Merry serves as Director of the Tax Payers Advocate Service in Boise, where she leads the effort to provide this priceless resource to my constituents. I might add that she accomplishes her duties in a manner consistent with her excellent character--which my constituents and I describe as sincerely helpful. In Idaho and across the United States, Merry Trudeau has established a reputation as an honest, hardworking leader capable of accomplishing even the most difficult and complex of tasks. She always wears a smile, and eagerly attacks any opportunity to help a constituent. When she retires on July 3, 2006, Idahoans and all Americans will be losing a truly great public servant. The level of responsiveness and accountability that Merry exemplifies as a liaison officer embodies my belief that government must be the people's servant, not their master. It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the accomplishments and career of Mrs. Trudeau, and thanking her for diligent service to Idaho and the United States.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, there has been an awful lot of talk the last few days about the FBI's Saturday night raid on the office of a Democrat U.S. Congressman. It's tough for me to get too excited about the howls of protest from members of Congress. I understand their concerns about protecting the independence of the legislative branch and possible abuse of executive powers. But it makes me wonder: Where were these voices of outrage and righteous indignation when we learned the executive branch was monitoring the telephone conversations of ordinary Americans? Where were they when the executive branch sought, and the USA PATRIOT ACT granted, more power to search the homes and businesses of ordinary Americans without notification? At least we know there was a legitimate warrant issued by a judge for the search of the Congressman's office. Are my honorable colleagues suggesting that members of Congress or the institution itself should be treated differently in the eyes of the law than those who hold the most important position in America--that of ``citizen''? I hope not.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House to a most important lesson in civic virtue. We hear much today about the shortcomings of our education system, about a growing sense of frustration and despair on the part of students, parents and policy makers. Today I have the honor and privilege of telling you about a success story that we all can celebrate. The heroes in this story are fifth graders at Cecil D. Andrus Elementary School in Meridian, Idaho. I recently received almost 30 letters from these young Americans requesting that I do whatever I could to stop Congress from removing funds that pay for the ``We the People . . .'' civic education program at schools throughout America. Mr. Speaker, these students are to be congratulated and encouraged to continue participating in the process of our government, to fully realize their potential as citizens of our great nation. I also congratulate their teacher, Heidi Fry and their principal, Barbara Horn, whose dedication and example have worked their magic with these students. The ``We the People . . .'' program is funded through the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. It was established in 1987 under the Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution. Letter upon letter from the students at Andrus Elementary related stories about lessons they had learned through the ``We the People . . .'' program--visionary quotations from the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution, the history of the documents that became our blueprints for freedom, and how leaders of the founding generation knew that survival of our new American Republic would require each successive generation to learn and embrace the value, price and responsibility of living in a free country. No greater testament could exist to the value of this educational program than the words of these young people, Mr. Speaker. No more compelling argument could be made for its continued existence in our schools. I therefore gave them my word I would do what I could to restore the funding. As a side note, the namesake of the school those children attend-- Cecil D. Andrus--was Secretary of the Interior during the Carter administration and four times was elected governor of the great state of Idaho. I served with Governor Andrus as Lieutenant Governor during his third and forth terms. He was a leader who put great store in the value of educating Idaho's young people to prepare them for shouldering the responsibility of freedom and the stewardship of our human and natural resources. He also placed great importance on people meaning what they say and keeping their word--especially those in positions of public trust. In closing I should like to add the names of these students to the Congressional Record so that one day in the not-too-distant future, when citizens of Idaho and this Nation are reviewing the background of their generation's leaders, I'm confident these names will surely be among them. Elaine Beech, Natalie Bowman, Steven Bowman, Ashley Charles, Nicole Covell, Madisson Cutbirth, Alejandro Delaloza, Cole DeSilvia, Joneya Dunn, Amber French, Talia Johnson, Corey Kerensky, Joseph Koetter, Jordan Lee, Brian Luke, Taylor McQuiston, Summer Moffet, JT Moore, Brianna Pantell, Courtney Paul, Dillon Pierce, Zach Poralla, Rhett Suciu, Eric Swider, Jakob Thompson, Lindsay Williams, and Chanel Zeko. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and all my colleagues to recognize the value of the ``We the People . . .'' program and help me restore the funding. Let's keep our word to these Idaho students, and to the generations of American students yet to come.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to an entrepreneur and philanthropist from my district whose initiative and vision are an inspiration to all Idahoans. Duane B. Hagadone began his modest career selling newspaper subscriptions. With hard work and passion Duane worked his way up to editor, then owner of that newspaper. Much later he founded one of the most successful diversified publishing and hospitality businesses in Idaho history, the Hagadone Corporation. On December 9, 2004, this lifelong resident of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, was inducted into the Horatio Alger Association, an organization that honors those who have overcome adversity and modest beginnings to achieve success. He now serves on that association's board of directors, and through determination and leadership has provided countless scholarships for underprivileged high school seniors. Duane B. Hagadone was inducted into the Idaho Hall of Fame, and was named Most Influential North Idaho Citizen for the past 5 years for his many contributions to the welfare of Idaho and its citizens. Duane B. Hagadone shines as a leader in the field of business and public works. He has given back endlessly to the State of Idaho and embodies a sense of civic virtue that makes him one of our state's greatest advocates and most valuable assets. I hope the House will join me in acknowledging Duane B. Hagadone's many contributions to Idaho, and his continuing example to us all.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, in ``The Glorious Quest,'' James R. Evans wrote, ``No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a failure. He may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours.'' I bring this to our attention, Mr. Speaker, because recently in a poll that was revealed by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum, a survey found out that on questions on the first amendment, one American in a thousand could name all five of the freedoms in the first amendment to the Constitution. However, in that same survey, 69 percent of those surveyed knew who the five members of the TV cartoon family ``The Simpsons'' was. They knew and could name all five members of the Simpson family. I bring this to our attention because now more than ever, Mr. Evans' words ought to ring clear to us. And in that glorious quest that he talked about, educating ourselves and then using that education for political action was one of the most important things that we could do as Americans to sustain our form of government. I bring this to our attention as well, because oftentimes I relish the opportunity to speak to students in my district, especially those in the honors government class. Invariably when I ask those students, whether they be high school seniors not too far off from casting their first vote to sustain this Republic, or to college freshmen somewhere in the curriculum, I ask them: Where do your freedoms come from? What are the source of your freedoms? Many times they will raise their hand and say it is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Only one in a thousand can name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. Those students are sorely fit, I would say, to go forward and lead this great Nation under our constitutional form of government, because, as I usually explain to them, actually the 10 amendments are a document of prohibition, not a document of establishment of freedoms. That is your birthright from when you were born. That was the great magic of the Founding Fathers. For the first time, they elevated the individual above the crown, above the king, above royalty, above all else except he who created them. For the first time, the individual was elevated higher than anyone else on this Earth. If I might, let me briefly read from the first 10 amendments. Amendment I: The prohibition. Congress shall make no laws. Amendment II: Shall not be infringed. Amendment III: Without the consent of the owner. Amendment IV: The right of the people shall not be violated. Amendment V: No person shall be held, nor shall any person be subjected, nor shall any person be compelled, nor shall any person be deprived, nor shall any private property be taken without just compensation. Finally, amendment VIII: Shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor crucial and unusual punishment inflicted. These are all documents of prohibition because they recognize that the first 10 amendments were not the source of our freedom. That is our birthright. These are documents of prohibition against government action. So if only one in a thousand can tell us what those first five freedoms are, how can they establish, then, the freedom of speech and religion and press, and freedom to address the government with our grievances; and finally, the freedom of assembly. Two of the most important elements, at one time or another, to resist our government. So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by pointing once again to one of the Founding Fathers, which I often do, maybe to the boredom of some, but it was Ben Franklin, as he walked out of a little church in Philadelphia, who was asked by a citizen, Mr. Franklin, what form of government have you given us? And he said, Madam, we have given you a republic. And it will fall to each and every generation to defend, to sustain, and to improve it. Mr. Speaker, with the results of that poll, I would tell you that we are tardy in our work and we need to pick up the speed and educate our people as to the form of government that we got.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the vacated time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House to the brave men and women from my district returning home from fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq. During a visit to Iraq last year, I was fortunate enough to witness firsthand these patriots' dedication to their country and commitment to expanding the frontiers of freedom. I also was reminded of the great sacrifice that they and their families make to secure the blessings of liberty to all Americans, and help bring hope to people who have been oppressed for decades. From decorated Marine Sergeant Luke B. Miller's selfless rescue of critically injured Marines in Karabilah to the opening of a medical clinic in Kikuk by the 116th Brigade Combat Team, these men and women serve as an example of our mission to fight terrorism and tyranny wherever it exists. The heroic efforts of these and many other individuals bring great and lasting credit to Idaho and all American armed forces. I encourage my colleagues to join me, Mr. Speaker, in applauding and recognizing the exemplary individuals from Idaho who are returning home from Iraq. Their courage, dedication, and patriotism truly mark them as America's newest generation of heroes. They deserve our utmost respect and heartfelt thanks.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3855.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of this body a recent column that appeared on Monday, October 24, 2005, in my hometown newspaper, The Idaho Statesman. It was written by syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette, and it makes some very important and relevant points about personal responsibility, parental responsibility, the problem of illegal immigration and the children it victimizes. I hope that our colleagues will take the opportunity to read it, and perhaps gain a new perspective on an issue that is growing in urgency across America. [From The Idaho Statesman, Oct. 24, 2005] Illegal Immigrants Are Criminals (By Ruben Navarrette) I get accused of always defending Latinos. But sometimes what they really need is a good scolding. Like on those occasions when Latino activists go into left field and start advocating totally impractical policies that add nothing to the national discourse on important and controversial issues. I got an earful of that recently when I was asked to join in a town hall meeting in Dallas organized by Hispanic CREO, a Washington-based educational reform group dedicated to giving Latino parents more choices regarding their children's education. My fellow panelists and I were expected to talk about education and how Latinos could demand and receive more from public schools that are doing future generations a disservice with a mixture of neglect, excuses and low expectations. My own solution to the educational crisis is all about self-help. Latinos can't sit around waiting for teachers and principals to suddenly develop higher expectations for them. Rather, Latino parents need to understand the power they have to pressure those students to take tougher classes, work harder and get grades that are so good no one can keep them down. The same principle applies to the subject that the audience really wanted to talk about above all others: illegal immigration. And it was during that discussion that reality went out the window. It started when a woman who identified herself as a teacher asked what she was supposed to tell parents (who were illegal immigrants) about why their children (who were also here illegally) couldn't go to college or apply for financial aid, even after they had worked hard and earned good grades. You see, typically, the pursuit of higher education requires a valid Social Security number, which illegal immigrants don't have. Some states also require that undocumented immigrant students pay exorbitantly high out-of- state tuition rates, even if they and their families have lived in that particular state and paid taxes for years. My answer to the question shocked some in the mostly Latino audience: Tell the parents they made a terrible mistake when they came into the country illegally, and that they compounded that mistake every day that they stayed here without legal documentation. Explain to them that our actions have consequences and that one consequence of their decision to trespass across the border into the United States is that they and their children were destined to live lives that may never realize their full potential. Make them understand that, while they may be splendid parents in every other way, they did their children a great disservice by leaving them to wander in the shadows. Whether they can go to college is the least of their worries. I don't care if the children are honor students, they can be picked up and deported at any time. And now, unless there are substantial legislative changes--like the enactment of the federal Dream Act championed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, which would allow illegal immigrant students to attend college--there is not much any of us can do for these children. The good news is that there is still quite a bit that parents can do for their children. They can contact an immigration lawyer or a low-cost legal clinic and ask how it is that one begins the long and often expensive process for obtaining legal residency. I told the crowd that I knew of one person who spent 12 years and more than $12,000 to convert her status, and that of her son, from ``illegal'' to ``legal.'' That brought gasps. Apparently, that sounded like a lot of money. It isn't, I told them. It's $1,000 per year, or about $80 a month. I know immigrants who spend that on their monthly cell phone bill, and this is much more important. If these illegal immigrant parents don't want to do it for themselves, then they should do it for their children. I received scattered applause, but it was nothing compared to the rousing response that went to another panelist--Raul Yzaguirre, former president of the National Council of La Raza--when he said that he didn't like the term ``illegal immigrant'' because he didn't think that people who came to this country to feed their families should be considered criminals. What else would we call them? They broke the law. We can be sympathetic to their plight without condoning their actions. In order for Latinos to make real progress, first they have to stay in the real world.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct. We have heard much from many sides about the USA PATRlOT Act-- concerns about what the bill does, statements about what it does not do, and fears about what it could do in the future. We have shared these discussions with constituents, state and local officials, businesses, librarians, and other government agencies. But earlier this year we had an important opportunity to move those conversations back to Congress to examine--in a light much more clear and objective than that in which we passed the original bill--how the PATRlOT Act has protected us from further terrorist attack, and also how balance between national security and personal security needs to be restored. As a result of the opportunity to debate, deliberate, and discuss, we made important changes to the original USA PATRlOT Act in H.R. 3199, changes that enable law enforcement to continue to investigate and prosecute crime while protecting civil liberties. Congress was able to go back and make those changes because the original bill included a sunset and made many questionable provisions subject to it. This sunset served us well, and so I am perplexed that in the same bill where we made vital revisions to the USA PATRlOT Act we also eliminated many of the sunsets and extended others for a decade or more. In doing so, H.R. 3199 takes away from Congress the opportunity to periodically review these provisions and ensure that the tools they provide law enforcement are necessary and that they are not being abused. I am glad that, in respect to Sections 206 and 215 of the USA PATRlOT Act, the Senate did not act as rashly as we did. I strongly urge conferees to see the wisdom of four-year sunsets for these sections, as passed by the Senate, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion to instruct.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my support to S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I also commend Senator Larry Craig from Idaho on his leadership on this legislation, defending Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, S. 397, is bipartisan, common-sense legislation that takes an important step toward preventing reckless lawsuits targeting the firearms industry. Such misguided claims against the legal manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition are akin to suing the Postal Service or an envelope manufacturer over someone committing the crime of mail fraud--it just doesn't make sense. The bill provides protection for those in the firearms industry from lawsuits arising from the acts of people who criminally or unlawfully misuse their products. The bill preserves citizen access to firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting and competitive or recreational shooting. I believe that manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition must be protected from restrictions on interstate or foreign commerce. In light of the concerted efforts by opponents of the Second Amendment to destroy the gun industry through frivolous lawsuits, it has become imperative that we protect the jobs and economic well-being of the thousands of people who work for manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition. I find the idea of holding an industry liable for the criminal misuse of their legal products deplorable. Our nation cannot allow the innocent to pay for the dealings of the guilty, or we circumvent the very foundation of the rule of law. It is the individuals who commit violent crimes, not the makers of the means, who must take personal responsibility for their actions through the restitution and civil penalties affirmed by law. This should be the case whether or not a firearm was used to commit the crime. Without this legislation, further unfounded lawsuits against the gun industry will lead inevitably to an encroachment upon our Second Amendment rights. Congress must work diligently to reduce the level of political rhetoric surrounding gun control, protect the Second Amendment, and promote the role of personal responsibility in society. This bill is a key element of our effort to bring some sanity to what's become a thriving personal injury industry in this country. Americans understand that suing legitimate firearms manufacturers and dealers out of existence won't stop criminal gun violence. But trial lawyers are eager to cash in on the pain of victims, and criminals rarely have deep pockets. This puts the responsibility where it belongs. I joined my colleagues in the House in passing similar legislation during the 108th Congress. That unfortunately got held up in the Senate. I am hopeful we will take the opportunity today to pass this bill with no changes so it can go to the President's desk for a signature. This legislation is long overdue.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to a school from my district that has received the No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools award from the United States Department of Education. St. Mary's Catholic Elementary School, in Moscow, Idaho, stands as the only school in the State of Idaho to receive this prestigious and important educational award. This award honors public and private K-12 schools that are either academically superior in their states or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement. St. Mary's School strives to encourage its students to grow spiritually; to develop a lifelong love of learning and to achieve their highest personal and academic potential. This mission represents and promotes the State of Idaho and the enormous potential of its people. The children of America are our most valuable asset. St. Mary's school provides a successful K-6 academic program and exemplifies the high quality of education and emphasis on learning in my great State. I hope the House will join me in acknowledging St. Mary's Catholic Elementary School's achievement.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the gentleman from California for the great work he has done in getting the Endangered Species Act reform to the floor. This is a very controversial issue, and he and the committee should be commended for working to address some of the real problems in the current law. There are a couple of provisions for which I have been a strong proponent, and I am pleased that the chairman has agreed to include them in the manager's amendment. My first amendment is a common-sense one aimed at empowering electricity consumers with the ``right to know'' what they are paying for. This amendment simply seeks to provide ``sunshine'' and transparency to the way our Federal Government does business. Specifically, the provision requires that each of the Power Marketing Administrations, the Bonneville Power Administration, Western Area Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the Southeastern Power Administration, to include costs related to the Endangered Species Act in their customers' monthly electricity billings. In the Pacific Northwest alone, the Bonneville Power Administration accounts for 45 percent of the region's electricity sales and 75 percent of the transmission lines. Bonneville Power's rates have risen 46 percent since 2001, due in main part to the Endangered Species Act's impact on the Columbia/Snake hydropower system. The Agency spends an average of $500 million per year on ESA compliance. To whom are these costs passed on to? Of course, the electricity ratepayers. The point of all this, Mr. Speaker, is that few Pacific Northwest consumers have a notion of the amount of money of their monthly bills that goes directly towards the Endangered Species Act compliance, nor do they or other end-user consumers of the other Power Marketing Administrations. It is estimated that as much as one third of the power bill from the BPA is devoted to salmon recovery, but no one knows for sure. I get a bill once a month from the power company that includes all sorts of information about tips on conserving energy and warnings on how to keep me from electrocuting myself, but nowhere does it detail what I am paying for. How much is for generating power and how much is for transmission costs and how much is for the ESA? I would like to thank the chairman for including language in the bill that consolidates jurisdiction of the Endangered Species Act management of species under one agency. During my first term in Congress, I introduced legislation that did just that, and I am pleased to see the concept is finally moving forward. NOAA Fisheries originally was part of the Department of Interior until 1970, when NOAA was created under the Department of Commerce to address federal management of commercial and tribal fisheries. This was prior to the enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Now the Agency's mission of managing commercial and tribal harvests of salmon and recovering endangered species are in conflict. NOAA Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife Service have differing processes for handling and permitting thousands of activities that must undergo federal conciliation under the ESA and competing science on how best to manage the species. It would be better for the species and for cost-effective government management to have one process that works. Consolidation of agencies managing the ESA will eliminate duplication and allow scarce Federal resources to be focused on achieving the true objective of the Endangered Species Act, the recovery of species through science-based management. I encourage Members to support the rule, the manger's amendment, and the bill and oppose the Miller-Boehlert substitute that lacks all the property rights protection that the Committee on Resources has worked so hard to restore. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to the passage of this bill.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, in my other life I was a salesman. As a salesman, I negotiated a few trade agreements, trade agreements between my potato company in Idaho and McDonald's all over the world; in fact, 82 foreign countries. I would venture to say that I could challenge anybody on this floor that I sold more potatoes, more French fries, more product for more money than probably anybody else in the United States Congress. So let me come at this from a little different perspective, and the reason I want to come at it from a little different perspective is because I cannot flimflam. I cannot overpromise and underdeliver hoping that people will forget in a couple of years, a la NAFTA. Mr. Speaker, when I was working, my boss said, you come home with an order, you come home with an agreement, you get an agreement from somebody, you better perform on it. So I would do this tonight, Mr. Speaker. I would tell Members, everybody that wants to adopt this agreement, put your job on the line. If in 2 years all of the things that you say are going to come true do not come true, quit. Quit the United States House of Representatives, because, my friends, you are the salesmen for the United States. If you want to stand behind this trade agreement, you go ahead. But I am not; I would not risk, if I were you, your job on this, because as Patrick Henry said, I have been one lamp that guides my path into the future, and that is the lamp of experience. We have experienced NAFTA. And by the way, as we stand on the shoulders of those Founding Fathers that built the very foundation of philosophy and politics that we stand on today, let me also quote George Washington who said, If to please the people we promise that which we ourselves disprove, how will we later defend our work? You will not be able to defend your work, folks. Give it up.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss perhaps the most fundamental of the reasons for my opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA--the serious conflicts it raises with private property rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that CAFTA contains 1,000 pages of international law establishing, among other things, property rights for foreign investors that may impose restrictions on U.S. land- use policy. Chapter 10 of CAFTA outlines a system under which foreign investors operating in the United States are granted greater property rights than U.S. law provides for our own citizens! Mr. Speaker, that's not encouraging free trade. That's giving away our natural resources and our national sovereignty. CAFTA would empower foreign investors to go to UN and World Bank tribunals to challenge state and federal policies here in the United States regarding property rights that violate their assumed ``investor rights.'' Those foreign investors then could demand compensation in the form of U.S. taxpayer dollars for the losses caused by complying with the same domestic policies and regulations that apply to all U.S. citizens and businesses. The standards for property rights protection that are used by the UN and World Bank to award U.S. taxpayer dollars to foreign investors would NOT be those of the U.S. Constitution, but rather international property rights standards set forth in CAFTA, as interpreted by an international tribunal. And I'm not the only one upset about this. No less than the Conference of State Supreme Court Chief Justices is among those concluding that CAFTA provides greater property rights to foreign investors than U.S. law provides you and me as U.S. citizens! Furthermore, current rules under Trade Promotion Authority granted by Congress require that trade pacts grant to foreign investors ``no greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than U.S. investors in the United States.'' Yet even a cursory review reveals that CAFTA fails the test on both counts. Although some words included in NAFTA's investor protection system were changed in CAFTA, the changes were simply procedural and not substantive. Instead of basing foreign investors' property rights on U.S. law, as Congress requires, CAFTA provides foreign investors in the United States with a ``minimum standard of treatment'' set forth by ``customary international law'' and established in ``principle legal systems of the world.'' The effect is to throw U.S. sovereignty and property rights out the window in the name of ``free trade.'' CAFTA exceeds U.S. law by empowering foreign investors to go to international tribunals in an effort to be compensated in U.S. taxpayer dollars for regulatory takings. Furthermore, new language in CAFTA almost unbelievably extends the outrageous benefits of this foreign investor-state dispute resolution system to corporations that have a ``written agreement'' with the federal government regarding ``natural resources or other assets that a national authority controls.'' For example, foreign investors could circumvent the U.S. court system entirely by bringing arbitrary challenges over oil and gas, mining, and water contracts to an international tribunal. If a foreign investor is granted a land concession for logging and, as a condition of the contract, is told that the trees must be replanted, the foreign investor can challenge the requirement to replant as an infringement on their ``foreign investor rights'' and ``minimum standard of treatment'' through UN and World Bank tribunals. The U.S. logging company down the street can only go through U.S. courts and has no such special rights. The very notion that international tribunals should get a say in how we manage U.S. property rights and grant concessions on U.S. land is simply unacceptable. Opening new markets between Central America and the United States is one thing. Asking me to cede decisions over U.S. natural resources and property rights to international tribunals while giving foreigners greater rights to our land than our own citizens have is something else entirely. I won't accept it, and neither should you.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership that we are getting on this. This is a very difficult time for me because I have been a Republican all my life, and one of the things that I have fought for more than anything else is fairness. Do I always agree with one side or the other? Not always. My entire political career I have spent trying to just maintain balance. The interesting thing that was brought up earlier in the debate, as I watched it from my office on this rule, was that the very thing that the PATRIOT Act is supposed to give to this country, that the proponents of it say gives to this country, is being denied on this floor today, and it is being denied because I think people are afraid to be exposed to the truth. John Stuart Mill one time said, in certain occasions, there are people that are unfit for liberty. Let us not prove to ourselves because of temporary panic or momentary discouragement or in a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, we are suddenly unworthy of our Founding Fathers' efforts in order to provide liberty to the folks first, not from the government, but from our birthright. So I am embarrassed to be on this side of the aisle from this aspect today. Certainly, I know that there are well-intended people on both sides, and I tried to work out a lot of things on both sides of this aisle on the PATRIOT Act. But I can tell my colleagues that with this rule and the lack of full and complete discussion, we have put a gag rule, the same gag rule that the FBI and the CIA and the NSA or any other government agent can put on the folks at the library or down at your local business and say, I want all of those records, but you are not allowed to use them. So it is unfortunate that we have come to this. It is unfortunate that we have come to this time at this moment, because we have done so much and we have so many reasons to be proud. But this is a very embarrassing moment when we are afraid to confront the truth and the full and unabashed debate on a subject that is so dear to us as this deserves.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, in my rush to get over here, I had not realized that the chairman had already accepted this amendment, and I thank the chairman for that. But there are a couple of thoughts that I would like to add to the discussion that have already been provided. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who is cochair of the PATRIOT Act Caucus with myself. I know the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the chairman worked very hard in committee to make sure that they came out with a product that would at least not be as bad as it was when we first passed it in 2001. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner). Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue today as we engage in one of the most important debates that we will have during the 109th Congress-- that is, how to ensure that neither our national security nor the individual liberties guaranteed by our Constitution are sacrificed to the threat of terrorism. The amendment we are offering today narrows the scope of so-called ``sneak-and-peek'' delayed notification search warrants and reins in the far-reaching power that we hastily gave the federal government in the frightening and chaotic days following the 9/11 attacks. We have often heard that ``sneak and peek'' warrants were used before the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, and I recognize that the courts have upheld their use in limited and extraordinary circumstances. However, it deeply disturbs me that in codifying this practice we did not employ the notification procedure upheld by most courts before the PATRIOT Act or practice due caution in an effort to protect our Fourth Amendment rights. Instead, we took this already questionable practice and made it the standard rather than the exception. Our amendment today is an important step toward reinstituting those precious checks and balances that make this a valuable tool for protecting security instead of a threat to the liberties that are given by our Creator, recognized by the Framers and embodied in our Constitution. One of my basic concerns with the way that sneak-and-peek was crafted under the PATRIOT Act is the extraordinarily broad list of situations in which the power can be used. Section 213 of this Act lists circumstances, including threat to life and destruction of evidence, in which notification of the execution of a search warrant may be delayed. I understand that these are extreme situations which may call for extraordinary tools. However, the last provision of this list is so vague, so broad, and so all-encompassing that it essentially expands the use of this tool to any investigation in which it would be easier for law enforcement to deny suspects the Constitutional right of notification. Our amendment today takes one of the first steps toward rectifying this serious flaw in the original PATRIOT Act language by eliminating part of this ``catch-all'' provision. In addition, it includes reporting language so that we in Congress know when delayed notification is requested and in what circumstances it is used. Armed with this knowledge, we will be better able to conduct proper oversight to ensure that this tool is used to protect personal freedoms while it advances the cause of preventing and prosecuting terrorism. In the Fourth Amendment, the Framers endorsed the principle that it is the government's role to protect our right to individual privacy, not to encroach upon it. This idea of individual rights--that each person is created uniquely and with certain inalienable rights that government cannot take away--is the most basic expression of who we are as a nation and a people. That is why it is so vital that this amendment becomes law. While I confess that I would have liked to see stronger language protecting our Fourth Amendment rights included as part of this bill, I am pleased that with this amendment we have the opportunity to reinstate some of the constitutional safeguards that were compromised during passage of the PATRIOT Act. Such a move would strengthen rather than weaken our ability to fight against those who wish to destroy the essence of what it means to be an American.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that Idaho is so firm against CAFTA, and I have received phone calls from companies in Idaho that say we need you to support CAFTA. Absolutely I have. I am not going to try to kid anybody and say I have not. I have had some phone calls from folks in the agricultural business that tell me that they bought into some of those arguments. But for the most part the commodity groups in Idaho are supporting each other. And they have said yes, CAFTA may be good for us, but we remember when we asked the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and everybody to vote against the Australian trade agreement because it was bad for the dairy industry and it was not too handsome for the beef industry. And so now the beef folks and the dairy folks are remembering that the sugar beet folks and the other farm commodities in Idaho supported them. But all I need to do when they call me and say we want you to support CAFTA, I just need to remind them where we were in the early 1990s before NAFTA. Since NAFTA in my congressional district alone, since NAFTA passed, we have lost 32 sawmills, lumber mills in the State of Idaho. You do not just lose a lumber bill. The people of Clearwater County, Idaho, in a little town called Pierce, had a plywood mill that they had to close down as a result of not being able to compete with the Canadian lumber, and not having a softwood agreement with Canada. As a result, they had to shut down the mill. That went on in many little towns. In the town of Cascade, Idaho; Council, Idaho, it worked its way south in my district, just inside the Continental Divide. We eventually shut down over 30 lumber mills and we laid off 14,000 families. Those 14,000 families no longer had an economic future in their business. Some of them were four and five generations in Idaho. The great Boise Cascade Company no longer has an operating unit in the State of Idaho and with the exception of maybe one or two scattered around in the south of the United States, no longer has an operating mill. When those 14,000 families lost their jobs, school districts started to die because the property values of their homes went down because the main employer in the town closed up the mill and left. So there were no jobs, and so suddenly the equity that they had been building up in their house, and maybe it was two or three generations, suddenly that equity vanished just like the sawmill did, just like their hope for an economic future in the State of Idaho. So you do not just lose a job in a State like Idaho and in a town like Pierce, Idaho, in Clearwater County, or Cascade, Idaho, in Valley County, or Council, Idaho, in Adams County, you lose school districts and you lose property tax base and you lose people. Eventually you lose families. That is what it cost the State of Idaho. That is why all four members of Idaho's delegation are opposed to CAFTA.