Butch Otter

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. I thank the gentleman for that. But more interesting than that, more interesting than that, my colleague, is that the $9,000 that those folks make in Costa Rica is half of what our United States Government says is the poverty level for a family of four, which is $18,000. We say if you make $18,000 or less in this country, you do not have to pay any taxes. You are at the poverty level and so we are not going to put any more burdens on you. Yet they expect these people to suddenly rush in and buy french fries at 50 cents a pound, beef steak at $3 or $4 a pound. And so who are they kidding? Who are they kidding when they say we are going to have these billions of dollars' worth of new exports that are going to be going to these countries? The other thing I wanted to point out is that it is interesting how we constantly shift the paradigm on why CAFTA is so important. Initially, of course, and when you are talking to an old businessman and an old international grocery salesman like myself, and you tell me that we have some opportunity here to build trade, I am all for it. So I say, well, show me the numbers. Show me the numbers, like McDonald's used to. They would go in and take a look at the net disposable income, and they would say we cannot afford to build a McDonald's down here, in one of these countries, because who could buy our product? Who can go in there and buy a hamburger, two all-beef patties, special sauce, onions, lettuce, pickles, cheese on a sesame seed bun, plus french fries, and a diet Pepsi or Coke or whatever else they would be selling? Because you see, quite frankly, there is no one in that country at that average wage that would have the net disposable income to do it. So when the trade agreement did not work, suddenly we shifted the paradigm to political. We have to do this for these five countries down there, because if we do not, they will go down the drain to communism. They will go down the drain to Fidel Castro and to Hugo Chavez from Venezuela, and Ortega is going to take over again, and these other folks are all going to be taking over. So we absolutely have to allow these countries to do this. Well, now, did we not start this in 1984, and have we not given them every economic benefit? And if this is as far as we have gotten since 1984, in 20, 21 years, I am a little concerned that if this is as far as we have gotten, we are not going anywhere with CAFTA. So finally, when the political argument did not work, now they have shifted it to immigration. And my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), said it very succinctly, and that is that that is the exact same thing they told us with NAFTA. They said if we just pass NAFTA, we will stop all of this illegal immigration, all of this desire for these folks to come from Mexico into the United States. Well, it is estimated before we passed NAFTA we had something like 800,000 illegal aliens in the United States, and now it is estimated we have something like 10 million illegal aliens in the United States. Well, it sure worked for NAFTA, and I have no doubt in my mind NAFTA plus CAFTA equals SHAFTA. I hope that this House is smart enough to turn back this effort to sell our sovereignty down the drain for some questionable promises of either economic increases for us in trade, political stability in that part of the world, or finally reduced immigration problems that we have at home. I think that is a very important chart. I hope we get an opportunity to have some real face time with that chart on television as well.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I just want to say that the gentleman makes a great point. This is the first time I have seen that chart and had it explained the way the gentleman has shown it. In my other life, prior to being elected to the United States Congress at the turn of the century, I was the president of a large international company. In fact, I traveled to, worked in, and in many cases built plants, but sold product in 82 foreign countries. In fact, I supplied McDonald's restaurants with french fries in those countries throughout the world. They wanted a good french fry, and of course Idaho raises a great potato, and so subsequently we would go into these countries. It is interesting the demographics that McDonald's does, just like any fast food joint or any business goes through. If you take a look at the chart the gentleman has there, if they were making the minimum wage at a 40-hour week, at let us say the Federal minimum wage, they would be making, my quick math here, they would be making about $10,480 a year. That is a 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year, and they would be making about $10,480 a year. The highest income, family income, average in Costa Rica, comes to $9,000, if I can read that from here. Am I right?

Mr. OTTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for his leadership on this effort. It has often been said in the past that all that needs to happen for good government to go bad is for good people to do nothing. And I want to congratulate the gentleman on the goodness that he is doing tonight in organizing this effort to bring to the American people the full blush and the full pain that CAFTA would really offer us. It has often been said and cheered throughout this world that we live in that the United States is the standard of living to be desired by everyone, to be cherished by everyone, the standard of living that is second to none in the world. And I think the gentleman from Alabama's (Mr. Davis) remarks relative to some of the globalization efforts that are so present in the CAFTA agreement is the one very reason that I am against it, because this globalization effort is a race to the bottom for the United States. We have nothing to do but lose in this agreement. There is not one thing that we can gain because it is, as many have already said before me, it is a race to the bottom and it is a replay of NAFTA. And all you need to do is take a look at the chart up front, and I hope the cameras can give that some face time, C-SPAN can give that some face time, because it is important to look and see exactly what happened after we adopted NAFTA. We were told in NAFTA in the early 1990s that we were going to have this tremendous explosion in exports from the United States to Mexico, and that we were going to be able to increase, at that time, what was a positive trade agreement with Mexico. Well, you can see exactly what has happened, starting in 1995. We continued to drop down, until today we are at roughly 40-some billion dollars in deficit trade with Mexico. And that is precisely what we are going to see happen with CAFTA. Thomas Jefferson once said that he had but one lamp that illuminates his path into the future and that is the lamp of experience. I have no way to judge the future except by the past. Well, if NAFTA is the judge, the measure that we have to judge ourselves by on our success and what we can expect from CAFTA, I can tell you folks, it is not near as bad. It is not near as bad as it is going to be. CAFTA has some unique features all of its own. In his introduction, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) mentioned that I had a new twist on it relative to sovereignty. I just want every Member of this House, all 435 Members of this House, I want them to be prepared when they have to go home and explain to their folks at home exactly what they have done, for whatever amount of the 435 Members vote for CAFTA, and quite frankly, in selling down the drain the sovereignty of this country. You see, under our CAFTA agreement, it is interesting that CAFTA is a pretty good size document. I am not going to lie to everybody and tell them that I have read the entire thing. But I tell you I have read the trade part and that was about 20 pages. The next almost thousand pages is international law. And the international law is what is going to prevail in any business agreement that we have with these five ``fledgling democracies'' under the CAFTA trade agreement. Here is what happens. If I happen to sell something to, say, the Dominican Republic, if I happen to sell something to the Dominican Republic from one of my entrepreneurs in Idaho, and they get into a conflict of what the agreement was or in one way or another this has to be settled by a third party, here is exactly what happens under the CAFTA rules. The Dominican Republic would submit the name of one arbiter. The United States would submit the name of one arbiter. And then here is the punch line, one of the other non-involved members of the CAFTA trade agreement gets to submit a third arbiter. So now what we are going to have is two Caribbean Basin members and one United States member serving on a court of arbitration in order to solve this problem. Now, if that does not happen what happens? If these folks cannot come to an agreement then what happens, if this tribunal cannot solve it? Then we go to the World Bank or we go to the United Nations to solve what is otherwise a business agreement. Now it is interesting that the best place to be in this agreement is not in the United States. We are told constantly that we are going to be opening all of these countries up if we will just pass this trade agreement. We are not going to be having the duties and the quotas and everything that stops all of our goods from freely being imported into these other countries. Dead wrong. Number one, there are a lot of duties and quotas that will go away but there are still quite a few that are going to last into the next 20 years, so we are still not going to be on a fair and equal trading level with the other members of CAFTA. But let us take a look at who put all of those duties and quotas in place. In 1984 this Congress passed what is called the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and we said as long as you add 28 percent of the value to whatever good or whatever value added items that you have in these Caribbean Basin countries, you can come into the United States with those products without quotas and without duty and without fees. However, the United States did not have the same agreement going back, and so we have done this to ourselves; and yet now we are saying that we are going to try to clear all this up with CAFTA. I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). I agree with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis). I think what we ought to do is go back and repeal the Caribbean Basin Initiative and then start from the get-go. And then we can say something to them about their environmental concerns, our environmental concerns. Then we can say something to them about the unequal labor laws or labor practices in the relative countries. But as it stands now we simply do not have the opportunity to do that. So there is one area that I would like to pay special emphasis to. I know a lot of people have said to me over the last couple of weeks, you are way over-concerned about the CAFTA agreement and what it is going to do to the sovereignty of the United States. I say this to you, that I have stood here on this floor and I have watched every Member on this side of the House and many Members on the other side of the House that have voted against any attempt to take one of our warriors that is fighting for freedom in Iraq or Afghanistan or any foreign country, and any attempt to put them before any kind of a tribunal outside the United States we have resisted and correctly so. Yet these are the same people, a majority of which now is willing to offer up our economic warriors to international tribunals. It seems terribly inconsistent to me that if it is correct to deny the courts, any foreign court to hold judgment over our soldiers, it ought to be the same way with our trade agreements. But anyway, I would direct everybody's attention to Article 10. Just read Article 10. Beyond its plain language we have now got hard evidence how the CAFTA tribunal system would work in real life and how it would create real advantages for foreign companies other than the United States, because a similar system was established in NAFTA and that is the one I would like to draw your attention to. A case was brought under that system in Loewen v. The United States, and this has set a legal precedent that should scare us all. In that case a Canadian funeral home conglomerate named Loewen challenged the judgment of a Mississippi State court that ruled against it in a private contract dispute with a Biloxi, Mississippi funeral home. The only government action in question was the normal function of a State court in a private business dispute. The Canadian company under NAFTA rules claimed that having to follow the standard rules of U.S. Civil Procedure in court, such as posting a bond, violated their NAFTA foreign investor rights. And the World Bank tribunal in that case ruled that the State court's normal operation was ``governmental action,'' and therefore regulated by NAFTA and that its conduct violated the Canadian conglomerate special NAFTA granted investor rights. It is just tenfold that bad in CAFTA. So I would hope that if those who are watching, those who are sitting at home thinking that their folks in Congress are working in their best interest, I would hope that they would take the opportunity in the next week, which we should be voting on CAFTA next week, to call their Congressman and find out why they are voting away the sovereignty of the United States, the Constitution, and especially Article III of the United States Constitution. Why are they voting to put that into foreigners' hands? Why are they taking away those great precious gifts that our Founding Fathers fought so hard for and worked so hard for? And now we seem to be in a rush to put once again for whatever reason another trade agreement called CAFTA ahead of the Constitution of the United States. In closing, I would just say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) again that I took a look at that first chart that he had up there that showed we had some $610 billion in trade deficit last year, $610 billion. Let us use the United States Department of Commerce's own figures. The United States Commerce Department constantly touts that for every billion dollars in foreign trade we will create 40,000 jobs. So if you just do simple mathematics and multiply that, you would see that that is 2.5 million jobs that we have lost since the inception of NAFTA. I say again, CAFTA is the same song, second verse, just a little bit louder and a whole lot worse. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss another reason for my opposition to the Central American Free Agreement or CAFTA. What I would like to highlight today is that CAFTA establishes a double standard--greater rights are given to foreign investors operating within the United States than are provided by the U.S. Constitution for our own citizens and businesses. The foreign investor protection provisions in CAFTA's Chapter 10 and the establishment of a separate ``court'' system available only to foreign investors form the core of this double standard. This aspect of CAFTA is called ``investor--state dispute resolution.'' It shifts decisions away from Congress and out of the Federal court system established by Article III of the Constitution, or even our State court systems, and into the authority of international tribunals--even though the dispute concerns activities and parties operating within the United States! Furthermore--and the U.S. Trade Representative's office is very careful NOT to mention this--CAFTA's Chapter 10 allows investors from the CAFTA nations operating in the United States to challenge U.S. laws in U.N. and World Bank tribunals! Here's how it works: CAFTA grants foreign investors from the CAFTA countries operating within the United States special rights set in international law but NOT in U.S. Constitutional law. CAFTA allows these foreign investors to use U.N. and World Bank tribunals to seek payment in U.S. taxpayer dollars for the losses caused by complying with the same domestic policies that apply to U.S. citizens and businesses. These special rights are laid out in Article 10 of CAFTA, which contains the rules that will govern investment among parties to the agreement. Of key interest is Article 10.5. Here we read that CAFTA has a Minimum Standard of Treatment for foreign investors set forth by ``customary international law'' and established in ``principle legal systems of the world.'' So once again, the standard of review in these CAFTA Article 10 cases is not U.S. law but rather international law set in CAFTA. And furthermore, it is not a U.S. court that hears and settles these disputes occurring within the territory of the United States. Instead CAFTA Article 10.16.3 gives jurisdiction over these kind of disputes to international tribunals established under the auspices of the United Nations or World Bank! So you have international tribunals judging whether foreign investors operating within the United States are being provided the proper rights and protections! American investors here at home are not allowed to bring cases before this special CAFTA tribunal system. American companies and investors use the American court system while companies and investors from the Central America use the CAFTA tribunal system. So CAFTA will give us two separate and unequal systems of justice: One for American investors and companies and another for Central American investors. Some of my colleagues might say, ``Well, you've shown that there are two different systems here, but that doesn't mean there is inequality.'' Others might say, ``Butch, you're only blowing smoke here,'' or, ``It won't be so bad.'' To all those I say, ``Just read Article 10.'' Beyond its plain language, we have hard evidence of how this CAFTA tribunal system would work in real life and how it would create a real advantage for foreign companies operating within the United States. A similar system was established by NAFTA. And a case was brought through that system, Loewen v. U.S., shows the threat that expansion of this system through CAFTA would entail. In that case, a Canadian funeral home conglomerate named Loewen challenged the judgment of a Mississippi State court that ruled against it in a private contract dispute with a Biloxi funeral home. The only government action in question was the normal function of a State court in a private business dispute. The Canadian company claimed that having to follow the standard rules of U.S. civil procedure--such as the posting of a bond-- violated their NAFTA foreign investor rights. The World Bank tribunal in the case ruled that the State court's normal operation was ``government action'' regulated by NAFTA and that its conduct violated the Canadian conglomerate's special NAFTA-granted investor rights! The United States only escaped paying hundreds of millions of dollars to the Canadian firm as a result of an error by a bankruptcy lawyer, who reincorporated the failing conglomerate as a U.S. corporation. That terminated the company's ``foreign'' investor status and led to a technical dismissal of the NAFTA claim. Still--and this is the point--the substantive legal precedent has been established under NAFTA and would be expanded under CAFTA. Foreign investors don't have to follow the standard rules of U.S. civil procedure while U.S. citizens and companies must! Foreign investors don't have to accept as adequate the normal functions of a domestic court system, while U.S. citizens and companies do! Even the prospect of such a fundamental change in our jurisprudence has prompted the Conference of State Supreme Court Chief Justices and the National Association of Attorneys General to oppose the so-called ``investor-state'' system's grant of rights that extend beyond U.S. law. In fact, Congress specifically included language in the 2002 Fast Track legislation to prevent the recurrence of this NAFTA problem in CAFTA. The Fast Track legislation required that future trade pacts grant to foreign investors--and I quote--``no greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than U.S. investors in the United States'' and that. The law also requires that future agreements include ``standards for expropriation and compensation for expropriation, consistent with United States legal principles and practice'' as well as ``fair and equitable treatment [standards] consistent with United States legal principles and practice. . .'' Yet, although some words included in NAFTA's investor protection system were changed relative to CAFTA's provisions, CAFTA clearly fails Congress' test. Even worse, CAFTA goes beyond NAFTA and expands on what sorts of U.S. domestic decisions and actions are subject to compensation claims in international tribunals. Here's what that means: When U.S. companies obtain mining, logging or other concessions on U.S. Federal lands their rights under U.S. law are determined in domestic courts. However, CAFTA will enable foreign investors with the identical contracts to take their disputes with the U.S. government to the U.N. and World Bank tribunals. Mr. Speaker, the problems with CAFTA are manifest, and they are not by any means restricted to the areas of trade or even the broader context of economic policy. They would have a profound impact on the way Americans understand the rule of law, thereby undermining confidence in our government and our system of justice. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this agreement. I yield back the floor and I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) once again for his leadership.

Mr. OTTER. The comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) jarred loose one of the comments that I did not make in my informal remarks but I do have written in my formal remarks. But for those people once again that are listening at home I would just like to tell them that under Chapter 10 in CAFTA you can expect any Federal law that we make in the future, that we pass in the future, any State law that is presently in existence or that we pass in the future, any local law that presently is in existence or that we pass in the future, we are going to have to conform with the CAFTA statute at minimum, because without doing so then we are going to be in violation once again of our CAFTA agreement. And once again we are turning our future, our economic future, our trading future over to the World Bank and to the United Nations. I thank the gentleman for helping me make that point.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I join the three previous speakers tonight, and I rise today in the urgent interest of America's sovereignty and the primacy of our laws and the Constitution. They are under attack, Mr. Speaker, by the Central American Free Trade Agreement that will soon be considered by this Chamber. In fact, even referring to CAFTA as a ``trade agreement'' is a misnomer. Yes, it involves trade; but its influence on our economy, our legal system, and our way of life would be much more serious and sweeping than the benign term ``trade agreement'' suggests. At its core, CAFTA is a document that uses more than 1,000 pages of the international vernacular of diplomacy to cede the right of the American people to be governed by their representatives that they elect according to the laws of their land and under the legal system established by their Constitution. Specifically, CAFTA brazenly requires the executive branch of the United States Government, as well as this Congress, our State Governors, State legislators, and even local authorities to conform all existing and future Federal, State, and local laws to a new set of international statutes and standards that go beyond trade matters. Make no mistake: only one thing would be worse than approving and living under CAFTA, and that would be to approve it and then find ourselves unwilling to comply with its provisions, which demonstrably contravene every principle of Federalism that is at the basis of our form of government. Such exercises of sovereign authority on the part of the United States Government on behalf of the American people we are entrusted to represent could subject our policies, our laws, our court judgments, and even our land to the will of an international tribunal empowered to impose the trade sanctions for our intransigence. This is not a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of fact. Precedents established by judgments rendered under NAFTA-related cases leave no room for doubt that CAFTA will open us to all forms of statutory globalization that is singularly not in the best interests of the United States. Let me be more blunt. Requiring U.S. domestic laws to conform to the extensive nontrade provisions in CAFTA is a direct violation of the Constitution as well as an abuse of trust placed in this government by the people of the United States. This is an intrusion upon the sovereign rights of the duly elected representatives in Federal, State, and local positions. But more importantly, it is nothing short of an abdication of the rights of those who elected us. Let us look at some specifics. Under CAFTA, a tribunal empowered to resolve a dispute would be made up of judges from three countries; two countries, one each, representing those in the dispute, as well as a judge from a third country from the CAFTA trade agreement. Now, no matter how you do the math, it adds up to one voice for the United States against two judges from Central American countries without the tradition of constitutional jurisprudence or democracy of which we are justifiably proud. Those odds simply are unacceptable. Beyond the CAFTA tribunal, this agreement would submit the United States to an even greater degree of unreasonable and unwarranted offshore jurisdictional control in the guise of the United Nations and the World Bank. CAFTA would empower them to order payments of U.S. tax dollars to foreign investors who claim that the U.S. business laws and regulations are too strict by international standards. Neither our Constitution nor our courts have ever legitimately contemplated such a circumstance and to do so now would be, once again, entirely unacceptable. U.S. businesses already must marshal all the ingenuity and technological advantages that they can to compete in the global marketplace. In addition, they are subject to severe and growing regulatory burdens placed on them by our own country's laws. Under CAFTA, they will find themselves at even greater disadvantage to foreign investors. The United States will only be a good place to do business if you are not from the United States. Our own businesses and entrepreneurs, our economic warriors will be stripped of their weaponry and sent to fight in a losing battle without protection. These prospects terrify me. And, yet, we have heard talk lately from some who do not find any of this to be a matter of concern. They say that CAFTA's implementing language would do nothing to change current U.S. law. To believe that you would have to be looking at CAFTA with blinders on, unable or unwilling to see beyond today and into the potential effects years down the road. While today's laws may be safe, all future laws intended to protect America and their interests are indeed in jeopardy. All this might sound a bit farfetched and overly dramatic. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of times when they have been forced to change our laws and our ways of doing business after submitting to the authority of an international court. For example, under NAFTA, a tribunal similar to the one proposed in CAFTA ordered the United States to allow Mexican trucks to operate throughout the United States because NAFTA included the right of foreign transportation firms to operate in our country. We in Congress have regularly expressed our concern about the considerable safety problems associated with Mexican trucks that do not meet the U.S. safety requirements. In addition, just last year Congress had to pass legislation repealing U.S. tax laws because the World Trade Organization decided that they were not in accordance with international policy. Changes to our tax policy should be based on our own laws and our own practices, not forced upon us by the whims and biases of international tribunals. I am a strong believer in free and fair trade, and I believe that developing good trade policies will benefit U.S. farmers and manufacturers. But I cannot support new trade agreements if we do not maintain an effort to enforce existing agreements. Ineffective, uneven enforcement of NAFTA has led to existing tensions between the United States and the Canadian beef, potato and softwood lumber industries, as well as the Mexican bean and sugar beet industries, significantly affecting producers in my State. While we refuse to take other countries to task over their exploitations of NAFTA, we allow our own sovereignty to be continually assaulted by the NAFTA tribunal. Having worked as an Idaho businessman for most of my life, I know that exporters in my State can compete and win on a level playing field; however, NAFTA has become a double-edged sword being used to undermine and ultimately destroy industry and jobs in my State. Rather than fixing old problems, CAFTA merely adds insult to injury by continuing this downward spiral toward a complete loss of U.S. sovereignty. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just would say that once again, there are many numerous opportunities for us to take a look at how we have been disadvantaged under NAFTA; and CAFTA, as has been said before, is just an ugly relative of NAFTA.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman giving me the opportunity to make the point. One of these days, one of these years, perhaps during my lifetime in the United States House of Representatives, I will be able to frame this amendment so that it will not have a point of order successfully placed against it. And I thank the chairman for that opportunity to explain my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to join with my other colleagues in congratulating both the chairman and the ranking member for having put together a foreign ops bill that certainly had to be an arduous task. But like the amendment that preceded me, I think that my amendment can improve on a near- perfect piece of legislation. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to correct what I believe to be a fatal flaw in the way we administer our foreign aid. We cannot truly be effective, either domestically or in our role as the world leader on the world stage, when our foreign aid policy forces us to support our friends while we are indiscriminately doling out money to our and their enemies at the same time. All the effort we put into promoting peace and cooperation is meaningless without requiring accountability from the recipients of our assistance. U.S. foreign aid should be based on a recipient's demonstrated willingness to support the ideals and the aspirations for their regions. When we provide aid to a country, we should be able to expect a marked change in that country's behavior in keeping with our and their goals. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about here. When my children were younger, I gave them a monthly allowance. Unlike gifts that they got at Christmastime and holidays, this was money that they had to earn themselves. And this allowance came with certain strings attached. It came with an understanding that I could expect certain behavior from them. On occasion, they would forget our bargain, and their behavior would not reflect the expectations that I had set for them. But when they did not receive their allowance the next month, they were quick to fix the problem so that we could all then once again live peacefully together. Foreign aid is like an allowance which the United States is neither obligated to offer nor give, and which does not come without strings attached. And yet we continue to act as if we are required to hand out money to nations and people who actively oppose the principles of democracy and peace. And this practice must end. Today we have a golden opportunity to change the way we address the issue of foreign aid because of some important changes and changes in leadership of the Palestinian Authority. We have an opportunity to further the development for a partnership for peace between our countries. In light of the renewed request on foreign aid, we should act now to infuse any aid with common sense and accountability so that we can advance the realistic goals that the President has set for the Middle East. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, is the first step. It states that no more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated to the Palestinian Authority or any other Palestinian entities will be available to the Palestinians during each financial quarter. What that means is that every quarter, the four quarters of the year, one fourth of the money in this bill that would otherwise go in one lump sum to the Palestinian Authority, but one fourth is all that will be able to be advanced to them during any one quarter. And then it will be advanced to them so long as we have the Secretary of State who will determine that the Palestinian Authority has not participated in or supported any acts of international terrorism during the previous 3 months. In other words, our expectation is that they should quit killing people. They should quit creating acts of terrorism. And for that, we will pay them. We know right now that those folks are being paid $25,000 a piece to wrap a bomb around themselves and go get on a bus in their so-called enemy's territory. And so that is why, with that expectation, then we make the payment. The President is working to achieve lasting peace in this region, realistically and, I believe, in good faith; and I applaud his efforts. But if we are going to see a change in the Middle East, our approach to foreign aid must change as well. What better time than now to change our attitude and the way that we hand out foreign aid. I encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to assist in the peace process by making sure that our assistance carries with it the weight of our principles.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, please allow me to express my great respect and support for the manner in which Chairman Sensenbrenner managed the recent hearings of the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding the USA PATRIOT Act. His resolve in following the rules while providing as much flexibility as possible in the face of often partisan and inflammatory rhetoric was a credit to his leadership, and was precisely what was needed in this deliberative process. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of the PATRIOT Act, and I have been among those maintaining that ensuring a greater balance of judicial oversight and adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of our constitutional protections would enhance its usefulness. However, associating the PATRIOT Act with what may occur in a prisoner of war camp or other well intentioned but illegal or inhumane action--as some members and witnesses have done--is a disservice to the process and to those who wish to keep the debate focused on improving the law, not destroying it. As the House continues deliberating reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, it is my goal to restore balance to the branches of our Federal government, secure the people in their homes and personal affects, and renew the promise of our Founders. That will not be accomplished by blaming the law for the real or alleged behavior of individual acting outside this or any other law. I will not stand idly by while some who wish not to rein in but rather to eviscerate the PATRIOT Act, or to use it as a political cudgel, use some of the very tactics we have professed to fear in the law itself in order to bring public ridicule and professional discredit to either Chairman Sensenbrenner or the Judiciary Committee. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind us all of the words of George Washington, uttered as a promise of the faith he had in our political system, this great Republic and those who govern: If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I would like to close by saying that those people that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) talked about are the same people that believe that sidewalks cause rain. They believe that this PATRIOT Act has truly cut down on crime. Americans have a right to security not only in their persons and their property, but their civil liberties as well. Though I must withdraw my amendment, I am hopeful that we can work together during the upcoming days and weeks in reauthorization debate to offer security to the American people without changing the essence of what it means to be an American. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the time left.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the chairman allowing me the opportunity to speak on this amendment that I believe renews an important balance between protecting our Nation and confirming the freedom on which our Nation was founded. While I realize the language is subject to a point of order, I believe it is imperative that we have this debate today. This issue drives to the core of who we hope to be as Americans, and it is important to address it on the floor of this House. The fourth amendment, which protects us from unreasonable search and seizures by the government, is fundamental to the Bill of Rights because it protects our rights to be individual and to be private. Its creators, under direction, I believe, of their Creator, endorsed the principle that it is the government's role to protect that right and not to encroach upon it. The idea of individuality, that each person is created uniquely and with certain inborn rights that government cannot take away, is the most basic expression of who we are as a Nation and a people. That is why I am so concerned about the way we have expanded the government's power to delay notification of search and seizure of our privacy. The issue at hand is not when or where or how often these warrants are used, but that the government holds these broad and sweeping powers at all. It is important to know that we are safe and secure within the borders of this country. But Americans can only be secure with their liberties, and Americans are only safe, if they are free. I understand that ``sneak and peek'' warrants were used before the passage of the PATRIOT Act, and I recognize that the courts have upheld their use in limited and extraordinary circumstances, but this does not justify the serious steps taken by the USA PATRIOT Act to erode away the protections offered by the fourth amendment. By broadening the use of ``sneak and peek'' warrants and making them the standard rather than the exception, the PATRIOT Act threatens our liberties that are given us by our Creator and protected under our Constitution. That is why I am offering this amendment today. My amendment narrows the scope of ``sneak and peek'' and brings back the judicial oversight that was built into our Constitution and is the balance of power in our government. It more carefully defines the very specific circumstances in which a ``sneak and peek'' warrant can be used. It also employs the notification procedure upheld by most courts before the USA PATRIOT Act. If we are going to codify this already questionable tactic, should we not at least limit it to the practice established by the courts before the USA PATRIOT Act? This debate is even more critical this year, as we will soon be deliberating reauthorization of parts of the USA PATRIOT Act. While this amendment may not be in order today, I implore my colleagues to give this issue the consideration it deserves when the reauthorization bill does come to the floor. As Americans, it is our fundamental belief that each of us is ultimately responsible for safeguarding our freedom and our safety. It is our obligation, nay, our duty, Mr. Chairman, as citizens of this great Nation, to see that no one, not even our own government, is allowed to take these freedoms and responsibilities away. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time and for his leadership, his continued leadership, and his exhaustive leadership on this issue. I really had not intended to speak on this issue. I came down to speak to an amendment that I am prepared to offer against this legislation. But I just heard my good friend and our leader on the majority side make some statements relative to the uncertainty and the government's ability to look through any matter of package that may go from the United States to Cuba. I would just remind the leader, although I see he has already left the floor, and other people in this audience that under the PATRIOT Act, what is the difference between our policy toward Cuba today and our policy toward our own people? That package could be in the hands of our postal service, which is supposed to be sacrosanct, and our government can go through it, by the way, by administrative rule rather than by the balance of the court providing for that request. It can be in our bank, it can be in our library, it can be, quite frankly, over the safety of the threshold of our own homes, and our government can still go and look through those packages. So I would say it is an argument that has no teeth, because if we are going to criticize a government 90 miles off our shore for that kind of action, we ought to be taking a look in our own back yard before we move in that direction. I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman, we are hearing an awful lot about CAFTA these days, and I would just tell you that if CAFTA truly offers all of the great promise that we are told by everybody, and that by treating these fledgling democracies, these people that really want to be a democracy in these five other nations, why didn't we go sell that to Cuba?

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his leadership on this issue and his tenacity in continuing to, every year, fight for the rights of people in the United States to enjoy their local libraries. I was interested in listening to the frustrations of one of the previous speakers on this side of the aisle, and it is obviously the utterances of a former Attorney General for the government who was frustrated by the Constitution. And this is precisely what the Founding Fathers intended. They did not intend for the lawyers to run this country. And obviously, when we adopted the PATRIOT Act 46 days after 9/11, the lawyers won. And not only that, but the government won. I just want to point out one thing to everybody here. As you heard some utterances on this side relative to the need of 215, I want to remind you that no comment was ever made that the way things happen in section 215 was legal before for the government before the PATRIOT Act passed. All they did was just changed one or two major words in that whole thing. Let me share those words with my colleagues, from ``may'' to ``shall.'' Did my colleagues hear the speaker before me talk about how the judge on the question of section 215 is involved? Involved. I will tell my colleagues what it is like is the ham and egg breakfast: the pig's committed; the chicken is just involved. I suspect that is where this whole bill belongs, back on the farm. The freedom to read what we want--it may not be the first thing that comes to mind when we talk about those basic, unalienable rights for which generations of American heroes have fought and died. The idea of a government controlling what we read is the stuff of history books and horror stories about tyrants and dictators. It is not something we expect to face here in America--the Land of the Free. That was before the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. Section 215 of that law has given Americans reason to wonder whether the government might be looking over their shoulders when they check out books and materials from their local library. It has dangerously undermined the people's confidence in their government and threatens the precious freedoms we enjoy under the first amendment. That is why I support this amendment today. I fully recognize the need to provide our law enforcement officers with the tools necessary to combat terrorism and keep Americans safe. However, security bought at the price of the freedoms on which our Nation was founded is no real security at all. Certain parts of the PATRIOT Act, including section 215, may have seemed understandable in the short term, but they are intolerable over time. We need to set things right before our precious constitutional rights are eroded beyond recognition. We sacrifice something much more dear than our physical safety when we fail to be diligent in defending our freedoms. Once lost, they seldom, if ever, are regained. And whether the tyranny that robs me of my liberties comes from abroad or starts here at home makes no difference: It is equally unwelcome. I am just as committed to protecting Americans from their own government's excesses as from the violence of foreign extremists. The degree to which that commitment has captured America's imagination and has found growing support here among my colleagues is one of the most gratifying experiences in my public life. A vote for this amendment is a vote to restore America's confidence in the ability of Congress to protect the freedoms they hold dear.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, If there's one thing Idahoans understand, it's the importance of matching our limited water supplies to what seem to be unlimited demands on the water we have. Every year our water supplies face demands from irrigation, power generation, industrial and municipal users, as well as from environmental groups for fish recovery and other Endangered Species Act requirements. These demands are constantly growing, yet every spring we watch hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water pass through our system that could and should be stored for beneficial uses. This is water that could be used for aquifer recharge, expanding municipal systems or even environmental mitigation. I have been told that the days of building new dams are over. However, I am not that easily convinced. Recently I convened a group of interested water users to look at additional storage opportunities in Idaho. The group is focusing on the Treasure Valley, but we are hopeful that the group can find some success and we can use a similar process in other regions of the state. We are not just talking about building dams; we also are looking at adding to existing structures, off-site storage, recharge and a host of other ideas. As part of this process, the Bureau of Reclamation in Idaho is undertaking the appraisal level study for the Boise and Payette river systems. The legislation I am introducing today is the next step in the process. It is a broad authorization for the Bureau to conduct feasibility studies on the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems. 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 continuing drought plaguing Idaho and 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.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. I thank the gentleman very much for that clarification.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the State of Idaho has an agreement with the United States Department of Energy, enforceable by the courts, that prohibits commercial spent nuclear fuel from coming into the Idaho National Laboratory for storage. Would the language contained within the report in any way change the existing law or alter the provisions of the State of Idaho's agreement with the Department of Energy?

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. Our public lands are of multiple use and must be managed for a variety of purposes, including hunting, grazing, fishing, recreating, wildlife, and many other uses. The Horse and Wild Burros Act recognized that horses and burros would have to coexist with these other uses and have been managed thusly since 1960. Unfortunately, horse populations have far exceeded the desirable levels for years, causing serious resource damage. Serious-minded conservation groups, such as the National Association of Conservation Districts, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Nature's Conservancy, and others have recognized the damage caused by these horses. Balanced management must be restored in the public lands where wild horses roam. In an effort to achieve this balance, Congress gave the BLM the authority to sell the excess. All this, Mr. Chairman, has been said before, and I am not going to go into it again, except I will tell you that without this authority the only feasible option is leaving unadopted excess animals in contracted long-term holding facilities that we are now doing to the cost of at least $9 million a year. The loss of this new tool in selling would only mean that priority funding will keep going to care for and feed unadoptable animals instead of managing the number on the range and in balance with the demands of our other resources. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues would see the wisdom in turning back this probably well-intended but misdirected amendment.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the required word. One of the greatest responsibilities of representing Idaho in Congress is convincing Members who represent other States--particularly those east of the Mississippi River--why some issues matter to us so much. High among those issues is our unique relationship with our biggest landlord. Almost two-thirds of Idaho is federally owned, and therefore exempt from local property taxes that pay for everything from our children's schools to police and fire protection. Picking up our Uncle Sam's slack means in the West we each pay higher property taxes and our counties are forced to make tough choices about essential public services. Counties in Idaho were shorted $75.5 million from 1995 through 2004 alone. That burden is heaviest where it can least be borne, in more rural counties with relatively small tax bases. Since almost all the land in the East is private, States there have no such concerns. Many Members of Congress from the East, care little about how tax-exempt Federal land hurts folks in Idaho. They just don't get it. I am extremely disappointed at the Administration's FY 06 PILT request of $200 million--a $26.8 million reduction from the FY 05 payment. PILT was funded at $200 million back in 2001 and is clearly a step backward in a commitment to compensate counties for financial burdens imposed on them through an overwhelming Federal presence. There's no getting around the need for some of the basic services that property taxes provide on the local level, but there's no excuse for having to pay extra for the `honor' of having so much nontaxable Federal land in our counties. The Federal Government has been a deadbeat landlord long enough. I am very concerned that over the past ten years, the PILT program has been funded at an annual average of $155 million, while over the same time period, Federal land acquisition funding has averaged more than $347 million. Why are we buying more land when we can't make good on the commitments for the land we already have? I applaud Chairman Taylor for trying to address this problem and recognize the constraints he has to work within. Mr. Taylor I commend you for recognizing the importance of this program and for increasing PILT up to $230 million while at the same time reducing land acquisitions to roughly $40 million. However, I think we need to go further and zero out all land acquisitions until PILT is fully funded and the Federal Government can actually manage the land under its ownership. I would encourage everyone to vote for the Cubin, Rahall, Udall, Cannon amendment and give what is due to our rural communities.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the name of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) removed as cosponsor of H.R. 1526, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2005.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House of Representatives to an individual from my district whose creativity and vision have brought due accolades to both herself and the great State of Idaho. Christy Reid was chosen out of the Nation of fifth graders as the winner of the National Arbor Day Poster Contest. Her beautiful artwork will now represent the National Arbor Day Foundation all year long. She has been honored in our home state of Idaho, in Nebraska City--the home of Arbor Day--as well as in Washington, DC. Not only is Christy's artistic talent on display in the posters, but she also had the honor of planting a tree in the National Botanical Gardens. As this tree grows, surely so will Christy's talent and her excellent representation of the many things that Idaho has to offer. I hope the House will join me in acknowledging Christy's achievement.

Mr. OTTER

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act. This bill codifies the Environmental Protection Agency's rulemaking, while affirming Congressional intent and the long-held positions of Republican and Democrat administrations with regard to the Clean Water Act and pesticide applications, fire suppression and other pest management activities. I am pleased to be joined by 28 members in introducing this legislation. Congress passed the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in the early 1970s in an attempt to better account for and more closely regulate discharges of municipal wastes and pollutants into our nation's waterways from large industrial facilities. More than 30 years later, however, federal courts have expanded the scope of the CWA far beyond the original intent of Congress. Today, family farmers, mosquito-abatement and pest-control districts, irrigators, rural water districts, federal and state agencies, foresters, pest and lawn-care control operators and many others are subject to unnecessary, bureaucratic permitting requirements and nuisance lawsuits based on misguided interpretation of the CWA by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Known as the Talent and Forsgren decisions, the court ruled that persons applying a pesticide according to the federally approved label directly to or above a body of water must obtain a CWA permit prior to the application. The Forsgren decision also significantly narrowed a longstanding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule exempting forestry activities such as pest and fire control from CWA permitting requirements. Similar cases are pending in other parts of the country. The court's viewpoint in Talent blatantly disregards the comprehensive pesticide registration process required by the primary federal pesticide statute, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Under FIFRA, the EPA reviews environmental effects and water quality data, and approves specific use directions for pesticides based on the information it has evaluated--a factor the district court in Talent relied heavily on in rejecting the suit. Failing to use a pesticide in accordance with its EPA-approved labeling is a violation of federal and state laws. EPA does not issue CWA permits solely for the direct application of a pesticide to target a pest that is present in or over water, nor has it ever stated in any general policy or guidance that a permit is required for such applications. EPA recently issued rulemaking specifically exempting pesticide applications performed according to label instructions from CWA permitting requirements. The action would codify a 30-year-old policy. By transferring the primacy of pesticide use from FIFRA to CWA, the 9th Circuit has authorized attorneys representing activist groups to file lawsuits to bully and intimidate farmers, mosquito abatements districts, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and others into ceasing long and widely practiced activities that have been authorized by--and already are closely overseen by--Federal and state governments. While the EPA's rulemaking is a step in the right direction, many groups are concerned that it will not provide the necessary protection from activist lawsuits. The legislation I am introducing today would make permanent the EPA's current rulemaking related to pesticide applications and CWA permits as well as its 30-year-old rule exempting certain forestry activities. Moreover, it would provide much-needed protection from nuisance suits for groups that already are too heavily regulated.