Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I missed the following vote due to a personal reason. On rollcall vote No. 162 to H. Res. 795, Condemning in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Dahab and Northern Sinai, Egypt, on April 24 and 26, 2006, had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I was going to offer and then withdraw it. So I think all I am going to do today is place my statement in the Record and speak briefly in a colloquy with the chairman about this. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention a very important site called Fort King, which is in Florida. It is in my hometown of Ocala. It is a very prominent place in American history. Fort King is a site where Chief Osceola fought against the United States in the chapter of American history, the Second Seminole War. This is from 1835 to 1842. This site in Ocala, Florida is represented by my good friend, Congressman Keller, who also supports the idea of making Fort King part of a National Historic Landmark, because it played such a distinct role in the founding of our wonderful State of Florida. Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton designated Fort King a National Historic Landmark on February 24, 2004, and we were greatly pleased. Then in November, 2005, Fort King entered a draft special resource study and environmental impact statement public comment period. This continued, Mr. Chairman, and we look forward to moving Fort King along in the process, and so now I am working toward preserving Fort King in perpetuity as a National Park. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring this to your attention. We have put in a request to fund it, and I think my only purpose today is to bring it to the chairman and his staff's attention how important it is to the history of Florida and its founding, and then if you in the future would consider it, that would be utmost appreciated. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield to Chairman Taylor.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about an important site called Fort King, Florida, a site prominent in American history. Specifically, Fort King is the site where Chief Osceola fought against the United States, in a chapter of American history, the Second Seminole War from 1835-1842. My home (and Representative Ric Keller's), Ocala, Florida, is home to Fort King. This Fort played a direct role in the founding of Florida as a State. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton designated Fort King a National Historic Landmark on February 24, 2004, to our great delight. Then, in November 2005, Fort King entered a Draft Special Resource Study and Environmental Impact Statement public comment period. This continues, and we look forward to moving Fort King along in the process of preservation. And now, I am working towards preserving Fort King in perpetuity as a National Park. My good friend and colleague in the neighboring District, the Honorable Ric Keller, who also represents Ocala, has collaborated with me on this effort. Historic sites are a vital link between current and future generations of Americans and those who came before us. These landmarks give context to the national experience and help us understand our past so that we can envision our future. What happened at Fort King? It is a very long story, about which I will elaborate longer on another occasion. The abbreviated story is that on December 28, 1835, Fort King was the site of an outbreak of hostilities between the United States Government and the Seminole Indians. The Seminoles were led in this attack by Chief Osceola. This attack began the Second Seminole War, which lasted longer than any other United States armed conflict, except for the Vietnam War. Chief Osceola's first appearance to the world was at Fort King in October 1834. The defiant young war chief rejected the U.S. orders to leave Florida and threatened war unless the Seminoles were left alone. There was no trust left between the U.S. Army and the Seminoles. Then came the fateful day of December 28, 1835. That morning 40 miles to the south along the Fort King Road, the Seminoles ambushed and annihilated two companies of U.S. Army regulars in route to Fort King. That afternoon, Osceola shot and killed the Indian Agent Wiley Thompson outside the walls of Fort King. The Second Seminole War had begun. During the 7 year guerrilla war that followed, every major general and every regiment of the U.S. Army was stationed at or passed through Fort King: men who would gain fame in the Mexican and Civil Wars. And here stood the enlisted men: Bemrose, Clarke, and hundreds of others who served in the Florida War. Following the initial series of engagements, most of which the Seminoles won, U.S. forces withdrew from the interior of Florida abandoning Fort King in May 1836. The Seminoles stood victorious, and. burned the hated Fort King to the ground. But it would be a short lived victory, when the Army returned a year later and rebuilt Fort King. When it finally ended in 1842, most of the Seminoles had been killed or captured and relocated to Indian Territory in Oklahoma. These native Americans constitute the Seminole Nation of today. An unconquered and defiant few withdrew to the vastness of the Florida Everglades and survived to the present as the Seminole Tribe of Florida. In March 1843, Fort King was abandoned by the U.S. Army for the last time and transferred to the people of Marion County. The Fort was used as the County's first courthouse and public building. In 1846, it was dismantled by the citizens of Marion County for its lumber. The great pines had done their job. Fort King and the surrounding area contain artifacts used in the attack and in the life of the Seminole Indians. Preserving our past for our children and grandchildren is imperative. Fort King is a historical gem that should be accessible to all. This site is significant, not only in Florida's history, but to the history of the Nation. I have been working on advancing Fort King through National Historic Landmark status towards hopeful, eventual National Park Service status, for the past several years, and am looking forward to see this project come to fruition. Representative Keller and I hope that I can count on the Chairman's support to preserve this unique historic site for future generations. Fort King History Fort King was originally constructed in 1827 to implement the conditions of the Treaty of Moultrie Creek, which restricted Florida Indians to specified reservation boundaries and prohibited all but authorized persons from entering the reservation. The fort, which was located at the edge of the Seminole Reservation, provided protection and security to the inhabitants of Florida. On December 28, 1835 a band or Seminoles led by Osceola attacked and killed the Seminole Indian Agent Wiley Thompson and several others at Fort King. Simultaneously, a force of Seminole and Black Seminoles attacked 100 federal troops making their way to Fort King from Fort Brooke. Only one soldier survived the attack. Most scholars consider these two events as the beginning of the Second Seminole War. Fort King played an important military role throughout the Second Seminole War by serving as a council site for negotiations between Seminole and the U.S. Government and as headquarters for the U.S. Army of the South. Chronology of Endeavors to Save the Fort King Site The Ocala Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution purchased one acre of land that was thought to have the Fort King cemetery located on it in the 1930s. Hurricane Gladys blew over a pine tree in 1968, exposing a cellar from a building associated with Fort King. 1988--1991: Ocala received matching grants from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, for archaeological auger surveys to find the location of Fort King. The grants totaled $56,000. Ground penetrating radar was used and foundations from structures were recorded on the high ground. In August 1991, the Marion County Board of County Commissioners voted to proceed with the attempt to purchase the Fort King site, using funds from the ``Pennies for Parks'' program. The Marion County Commission with the help of the McCall family, City of Ocala, Bureau of Historic Preservation and Trust for Public Lands pursued the acquisition of the site from 1988 to 2001. In 2001 the County, City, and State purchased the entire Fort King site with the City agreeing to maintain and protect the site. On June 12, 2003 the National Park System Advisory Board unanimously recommended Fort King for National Landmark status. On February 24, 2004 Fort King was designated as a National Landmark. Why a National Park? Since the early 1900s local citizens recognized the historical value of this site not only to our community but to the nation, On a national level, Fort King played a key role in the Second Seminole War and is strongly associated with the broader national themes of Indian Removal and Jacksonian Democracy, Manifest Destiny and Westward Expansion. The fort also had strong ties to persons, such as the famous Seminole Indian leader Osceola and General Wiley Thompson, who are significant in the history of our country. Most of the West Point graduates during this time period served at Fort King. Compared to other Second Seminole War sites, Fort King contains the greatest wealth of intact subsurface features and artifacts presently documented. Archaeologists have also found that the site contains several pre-contact American Indian components, which with further research could answer important questions as to the transition between the Archaic (circa 2300-500BC) and Cades Pond (circa AD100-600) periods. Archaeological studies have already identified structural and artifactual features that relate to the early post-military use of Fort King. This site has the potential to provide important information about the establishment, early settlement and expansion of the Florida peninsula. The City of Ocala and Marion County were politically and geographically established because of Fort King. This nationally significant historical resource fundamentally defines our sense of place, who we are as citizens and our role in our Nation's history. Significance of a National Park The designation of Fort King as a National Park will provide citizens the opportunity to experience the interpretive and educational benefits that the site has to offer. It will also create a new recreational opportunity, which is currently unavailable within the region, A National Park will attract visitors not only to this region but to the State of Florida. Most importantly, the citizens of Ocala/Marion County are very proud of their heritage and have gone to great lengths to continually try to preserve it for future generations. The City of Ocala, Marion County, the Historic Ocala Preservation Society, the Marion County Black Archives, the Marion Country Historical Commission, the Marion County Museum of History, the Seminole War Foundation and many individuals have worked tirelessly to save buildings, sites and historic information as well as to create local preservation laws. These preservation efforts would not have been possible were it not for the continuous help and support from the State of Florida.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Putnam-Capps amendment to H.R. 5386. This amendment, which has broad bi-partisan support, would remove the provisions in the underlying bill that lifts three long-standing moratoriums on offshore natural gas leasing. This provision will not provide the relief its supports claim it will. It will merely hinder our efforts to get a real and permanent solution to this problem. The repeal of the congressional moratorium will limit States' ability to safeguard their natural resources and would set current OCS policy badly adrift. The prohibition of OCS drilling has been a national priority for over 20 years. Congress led the way by passing the first moratorium on OCS leasing in 1982, which was soon extended to waters throughout much of our nation's coastal areas. Dismantling this 25-year congressional moratorium in an appropriations bill is an unwise approach to our nation's energy needs. Comprehensive legislative is needed to deal with the many complex oil and gas issues on the OCS. For the past few months, I have been working with some of my Florida colleagues on a comprehensive solution to this issue, not a patchwork of legislative initiatives. We have worked with Chairman Pombo on legislation that would give the states the final authority to decide whether or not to allow drilling or leasing off its shores. It is imperative to empower all coastal states to determine their own future, putting decisions regarding offshore development in the hands of our state elected officials instead of the federal government. The bill would have put a 125-mile buffer permanently under state control for purposes of oil and gas leasing.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the city of Patara in Turkey sports a fantastic beach that sprawls for more than 11 miles. It recently rated number one on the London Sunday Times' list of the world's best beaches. But Patara is worth our attention for more than sand and surf. An archeological team led by Akdeniz University Professors Fahri Isik and Havva Iskan Isik recently unearthed an ancient parliament building in Patara--the meeting place of the first federal republic in recorded human history. The building, called the Bouleuterion, housed at least twenty-three city-states of the Lycian League, which existed along the Mediterranean coast of Turkey from about 167 BC until 400 AD. The Lycian League's republican governing system, utilizing proportional representation, was unparalleled in the ancient world, and fascinated the pioneering philosophers of the Enlightenment, particularly Montesquieu. Depending on the size of the member cities, each elected one, two or three representatives to the Lycian parliament. When cities were too small, two or three banded together to share one representative vote. The six largest cities in the League had the right to three votes. The parliament elected a president, called the ``Lyciarch,'' which at various times served as the League's religious, military, and political leader. Although it is contested, there is evidence to suggest that women could be, and in fact were, Lyciarch. In Book IX of Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws, after charting the highs and lows of the earliest republics, he stresses the utility of a confederacy. He cites the Lycian League as an example: ``It is unlikely that states that associate will be of the same size and have equal power. . . . If one had to propose a model of a fine federal republic, I would choose the republic of Lycia.'' Montesquieu's interest in the Lycian way of government would prove central to our founding. Thanks to his writings, in the debates about our own Constitution, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison cited the Lycian League as a model for our own system of government. As well, in literal linkage, the semi-circular configuration of seats in this House of Representatives is exactly the same seating arrangement as in the Bouleuterion in Patara. The Bouleuterion's throne-like perch, where the elected Lyciarch sat, is much the same as the seat of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. On June 30, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, James Madison appealed to the delegates' understanding of the Lycian League. The Convention had just rejected the ``New Jersey Plan'', which called for a rather modest revision of our Nation's first constitutional framework, the failed Articles of Confederation. The delegates resolved to come up with a new constitution, but had few notions in common of how it should proceed. A delegate from Connecticut, Oliver Ellsworth, had just finished arguing for the Articles of Confederation's principle that every State should be equal in the national arena. He specifically asked, ``Where is or was a confederation ever formed, where equality of voices was not a fundamental principle?'' James Madison replied that the Lycian League was different, according representation in reflection of actual size. His Virginia plan provided for a bicameral legislature, with both houses' representation based on States' population. He eventually had to accept a compromise, with a people's house of proportional representation, our House of Representatives, in tandem with a Senate of equal State representation. Hamilton and Madison also cited the Lycian League in defense of representative democracy. While direct rule usually resulted in either tyranny or anarchy, the two founders felt that delegation of authority to elected representatives would allow the government to function properly. The ideas and debates of our founding fathers may seem archaic to our modem times, but we face questions of federalism every day in this Congress. A federalist system of government divides power between a central authority (the Federal Government) and constituent political units (the States and localities). The delineation of that power comes into question particularly often on the Energy & Commerce Committee, of which I am a Subcommittee Chairman, whether we are debating the proper authority over electricity transmission across State lines, the regulation of hazardous waste, or the transmission of information through our telecommunications infrastructure. Meanwhile, whether we are helping Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries develop representative democratic systems, or providing advice to the burgeoning democracies of post-Soviet Eastern Europe, we effectively reenact the Constitutional Convention's debates about the Lycian League and the nature of democracy around the world. We are doing what we can to help spread freedom and democracy, in our own image. Unfortunately, while it is relatively easy to conceive of the best model of government--as our founding fathers did, and Montesquieu did before them--the diversity of the real world, in geography, ethnicity, religion, and history, makes applying that best model quite difficult in practice. The British archeologist George Bean highlighted some of the unique features of the Lycian League--features not dissimilar to our own country's: ``Among the various races of Anatolia, the Lycians always held a distinctive place. Locked away in their mountainous country, they had a fierce love of freedom and independence, and resisted strongly all attempts at outside domination; they were the last in Asia Minor to be incorporated as a province into the Roman Empire.'' Our experience so far in guiding the nascent democracy in Iraq should certainly illustrate that representative democracy may not be perfectly replicable, at least overnight. Fifteen years ago, all a visitor to Patara would have noticed were the tops of a few old stones. Today, the excavations at Patara have unearthed the remains of an entire city. The archeological team has rescued numerous buildings and items from the sand and scrub brush, besides the Bouleuterion parliament building, including: a large necropolis; a Roman bath; a sizeable semicircular theater; a sprawling main avenue leading to the market square; a Byzantine basilica (one of 22 churches once packed into Patara); one of the world's oldest lighthouses; and a fortified wall. I would encourage everyone to visit Patara, for its beauty and for its archeological significance. The excavation site is 10-15 minutes from the glorious beach, and will be opened to the public in 2007. While we wait, one of Turkey's largest museums, the Antalya Archaeological Museum, displays many of the finds from Patara and the surrounding area. We owe a great debt to Turkey's Ministry of Culture and the Akdeniz University in Antalya for their dedication of time and money to bringing the ancient ruins of Patara out of the dust and back into our lives. In closing, I would like to thank: Dr. Gul Isin, Associate Professor of Archeology at Akdeniz Antalya in Turkey, who has been diligently working with Dr. Fahri Isik and Dr. Havva Iskan Isik to uncover the mysteries of the Patara site; Professor James W. Muller of the University of Alaska, Anchorage, who dissected how the Lycian League affected the founding fathers; and the American Friends of Turkey, the Friends of Patara, and former Representatives Stephen Solarz and Robert Livingston, who graciously introduced me to the archeological findings at Patara, and the important work of Professors Isin and Muller.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the city of Patara in Turkey sports a fantastic beach that sprawls for more than 11 miles. It recently rated number one, on the London Sunday Times' list of the world's best beaches. But Patara is worth our attention for more than sand and surf. An archeological team led by Akdeniz University Professors Fahri Isik and Havva Iskan Isik recently unearthed an ancient parliament building in Patara--the meeting place of the first federal republic in recorded human history. The building, called the Bouletarion, housed at least twenty-three city-states of the Lycian League, which existed along the Mediterranean coast of Turkey from about 167 BC until 400 AD. The Lycian League's republican governing system, utilizing proportional representation, was unparalleled in the ancient world, and fascinated the pioneering intellectuals of the Enlightenment, particularly Montesquieu. Depending on the size of the member cities, each elected one, two or three representatives to the Lycian parliament. When cities were too small, two or three banded together to share one representative vote. The six largest cities in the League had the right to three votes. The parliament elected a president, called the ``Lycearch,'' which at various times served as the League's religious, military, and political leader. Although it is contested, there is evidence to suggest that women could be and in fact were Lycearch. In Book IX of Montesquieu's Spirit of the Law, after charting the highs and lows of the earliest republics, he stresses the utility of a confederacy. He cites the Lycian League as an example: ``It is unlikely that states that associate will be of the same size and have equal power. . . . If one had to propose a model of a fine federal republic, I would choose the republic of Lycia.'' Montesquieu's interest in the Lycian way of government would prove central to our founding. Thanks to his writings, in the debates about our own Constitution, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison cited the Lycian League as a model for our own system of government. As well, in literal linkage, the semi-circular configuration of seats in this House of Representatives is exactly the same seating arrangement as in the Bouletarion in Patara. The Bouletarion's throne- like perch, where the elected Lycearch sat, is much the same as the seat of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. On June 30, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, James Madison appealed to the delegates' understanding of the Lycian League. The Convention had just rejected the ``New Jersey Plan'', which called for a rather modest revision of our nation's first constitutional framework, the failed Articles of Confederation. The delegates resolved to come up with a new constitution, but had few notions in common of how it should proceed. A delegate from Connecticut, Oliver Ellsworth, had just finished arguing for the Articles of Confederation's principle that every state should be equal in the national arena. He specifically asked, ``Where is or was a confederation ever formed, where equality of voices was not a fundamental principle?'' James Madison replied that the Lycian League was different, according representation in reflection of actual size. His Virginia plan provided for a bicameral legislature, with both houses' representation based on states' population. He eventually had to accept a compromise, with a people's house of proportional representation, our House of Representatives, in tandem with a Senate of equal state representation. Hamilton and Madison also cited the Lycian League in defense of representative democracy. While direct rule usually resulted in either tyranny or anarchy, the two founders felt that delegation of authority to elected representatives would allow the government to function properly. In addition, the Lycian League was. used in defense of individual rights and a strong national government, two notions the original Articles of Confederation conspicuously avoided. In Federalist number 15, Hamilton called the Articles' avoidance of individual rights in favor of state rights the ``radical vice'' of our nation's first governing system. The ideas and debates of our founding fathers may seem archaic to our modem times, but we face questions of federalism every day in this Congress. A federalist system of government divides power between a central authority (the federal government) and constituent political units (the states and localities). The delineation of that power comes into question particularly often on the Energy & Commerce Committee, of which I am a Subcommittee Chairman, whether we are debating the proper authority over electricity transmission across state lines., the regulation of hazardous waste, or the transmission of information through our telecommunications infrastructure. Meanwhile, whether we are helping Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries develop representative democratic systems, or providing advice to the burgeoning democracies of post-Soviet Eastern Europe, we effectively reenact the Constitutional Convention's debates about the Lycian League and the nature of democracy around the world. We are doing what we can to help spread freedom and democracy, in our own image. Unfortunately, while it is relatively easy to conceive of the best model of government--as our founding fathers did, and Montesquieu did before them--the diversity of the real world, in geography, ethnicity, religion, and history, makes applying that best model quite difficult in practice. The British archeologist George Bean highlighted some of the unique features of the Lycian League--features not dissimilar to our own country's: ``Among the various races of Anatolia, the Lycians always. held a distinctive place. Locked away in .their mountainous country, they had a fierce love of freedom and independence, and resisted strongly all attempts at outside domination; they were the last in Asia Minor to be incorporated as a province into the Roman Empire.'' Our experience so far in guiding the nascent democracy in Iraq should certainly illustrate that representative democracy may not be perfectly replicable, at least overnight. Fifteen years ago, all a visitor to Patara would have noticed were the tops of a few old stones. Today, the excavations at Patara have unearthed the remains of an entire city. The archeological team has rescued numerous buildings and items from the sand and scrub brush, besides the Bouletarion parliament building, including: a large necropolis; a Roman bath; a sizeable semicircular theater; a sprawling main avenue leading to the market square; a Byzantine basilica (one of 22 churches once packed into Patara); one of the world's oldest lighthouses; and a fortified wall. I would encourage everyone to visit Patara, for its beauty and for its archeological significance. The excavation site is 10-15 minutes from the glorious beach, and will be opened to the public in 2007. While we wait, one of Turkey's largest museums, the Antalya Archaeological Museum, displays many of the finds from Patara and the surrounding area. We owe a great debt to Turkey's Ministry of Culture and the Akdeniz University in Antalya for their dedication of time and money to bringing the ancient ruins of Patara out of the dust and back into our lives. In closing, I would like to thank: Dr. Gul Isin, Associated Professor of Archeology at Akdeniz Antalya in Turkey, who has been diligently working with Dr. Fahri Isik and Dr. Havva Iskan Isik to uncover the mysteries of the Patara site; Professor James W. Muller of the University of Alaska, Anchorage, who dissected how the Lycian League impacted the founding fathers; and the American Friends of Turkey, the Friends of Patara, and former Representatives Stephen Solarz and Robert Livingston, who graciously introduced me to the archeological findings at Patara, and the important work of Professors Isin and Miller.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. La Ladrillera, a brickyard in Sasabe, Mexico, is the last gathering place where coyotes deliver final words of advice before smuggling their human cargo across the border into the United States. Each illegal immigrant pays anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000 to these opportunists to be guided on their 3-day journey across the desert into their ideal of a promised land, the United States. My colleagues, let us be clear on the nature of these smugglers. They are not generous humanitarians aiding their fellow man. Many of these illegal immigrants are beaten, robbed and even raped before they even reach the Mexico-U.S. border. Yet they keep paying the coyotes enough money so that these smugglers have access to sophisticated arms, weapons, GPS equipment and high quality mobile radios. Many of them have better equipment than our own Border Patrol agents. In today's Washington Times, Gilbert Reyes, one of these smugglers, or successful local businessmen, describes the situation of these immigrants: ``They want to get into the United States, and they are willing to do almost anything, even walk for mile after mile in the desert. They think they can go into America and get a pay to stay permanently. Maybe they can. Maybe they can't.'' His assertion about the immigrants' belief rings true as we look at the facts on immigration. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants, and now today we have 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants seeking amnesty. Two years ago, President Bush first announced his guest worker program, and illegal immigrant numbers have risen steadily since. A survey conducted by the Border Patrol in 2004 revealed that of those illegal aliens in custody of the Border Patrol, 45 percent were influenced to come to the U.S. by the promise of amnesty. The immigration bill we passed in the House directly strengthened legal recourse against these coyotes and focused on securing our borders, increasing the number of Border Patrol agents, and enforcing the immigration laws that we currently have. These are essential steps that must be taken before any form of immigration reform has a hope of succeeding. And the American people agree. In a recent Zogby poll, 64 percent of respondents preferred the House bill's approach of enforcement first and only 30 percent preferred the Senate's approach of amnesty. Additionally, 73 percent of respondents had little or no confidence in the ability of our government to screen out terrorists or criminals if there is a mass amnesty for those 12 million illegals already in this country. And yet the pressure is mounting in favor of this unpopular and impractical proposal. There are some journalistic groups that have even begun to object to the use of the word ``illegal'' when referring to these immigrants. We are supposed to refer to these individuals as, quote, undocumented or even the other extreme proposal, to call them economic refugees. But calling breaking the law by any other name does not make it less of a crime. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is illegal to enter the United States illegally. It is illegal to smuggle human beings into the United States for a price. And it is illegal to knowingly hire and aid a person you know entered our country illegally. Another central issue with immigration reform is to ensure that those waiting and hoping to enter this country will be treated fairly. Many of them have undergone grueling ordeals to be able to enter the United States. I have heard from one couple in my district that had to undergo multiple in-depth interviews at the embassy before getting their permits. The embassy was a 3-hour commute away for them. As they had no transportation, they had to walk. But they told me they were happy to do so for the simple chance to come into the United States. Many legal immigrants have to wait 5, 10, sometimes 15 years before they get their final approval to immigrate. To allow those who bypassed all the rules and snuck into the U.S. amnesty and a path to citizenship is an egregious slap in the face to all those immigrants who sacrificed to respect our laws and enter legally. My colleagues, we are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants have vitalized our society, brought new life to our democracy and strengthened our communities simply by their contributions. However, we are also a nation of laws, and those whose first action is to willfully break them should be held accountable, not given preferential treatment.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as I think most of us know after listening to this debate, the fuel prices around this country have been rising. Beginning with the summer driving season, I think particularly in Florida where we have so many tourists, we are concerned about it, and of course we know that during the time of growing economies, and China and India are consuming more and more of the world's available petroleum supplies, that puts us competitive here in the United States. To make matters worse, nuclear ambitions in Iran, the fourth largest producer of oil, intentions in Nigeria, the 12th, have created what would be perceived to be a perfect storm, which is a precipitous rise in gasoline and other fuel prices. Our problem back home now is how to manage those global issues so that they will have as little impact at home on the average working American who just wants to take his family on that planned vacation to Florida, let us hope, under a tight budget or maintain his delivery business without taking out additional loans just to fill up his car. I am happy that my colleague, Mrs. Wilson, is taking up this bill, H.R. 5253, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006. I commend her leadership for this. I believe this bill deals directly and aggressively with the need to stabilize the price of fuel in an uncertain world market and ensure that greed and opportunism does not worsen those challenges by gouging the consumer at the pump. This bill for the first time allows the Federal Trade Commission, which I have jurisdiction over as chairman of the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, at any time, my colleagues, to prosecute price gouging. This bill takes aim at those in the wholesale and retail markets for gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, home heating oil and biofuels who prey on their consumers for their own unjust enrichment. The FTC is directed to define what price gouging actually is. We have had them in a hearing, and they have described it, but it is not a precise definition. Let us get a precise definition. And a very important point: This legal recourse and its enforcement provisions against gouging are always available, not just in times of natural or energy emergencies like we had in Katrina. Mr. Speaker, this bill's hammer is triggered by consumer rip-offs, not just bureaucratic proclamations. In addition, State Attorney Generals will be empowered to bring cases under the Federal law, and those cases can lead to extremely strong civil and criminal penalties and to multi-millions of dollars, and the possibility of a visit to the nearest correctional facility. This is a very aggressive piece of legislation targeted at a problem that weakens this country not only in dollars but what it does to the everyday life of an American, vacations missed, budgets broken and businesses stretched thin. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5253 and once and for all make it clear that we in Congress are serious about solving our energy challenges at home so that we can be more successful in solving them abroad. This bill will serve us and our children well.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, as every American knows, fuel prices around the country have begun to rise with the beginning of the summer driving season, when demand is at its peak, and during a time when growing economies like China and India are consuming more and more of the world's available petroleum supply. To make matters worse, nuclear ambitions in Iran, the fourth largest oil producer, and tensions in Nigeria, the twelfth, have created the perfect storm for a precipitous rise in gasoline and other fuel prices. Our problem back home is how to manage those global issues so that they have as little impact at home on the average American who just wants to take his family on that planned vacation under tight budget or maintain his delivery business without taking out an additional loan. I am very happy that we are taking up H.R. 5253, the ``Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006.'' This bill deals directly and aggressively with the need to stabilize the price of fuel in an uncertain world market and ensure that greed and opportunism don't worsen those challenges by gouging the customer at the pump. H.R. 5253, for the first time, allows the FTC, at any time, to prosecute price gouging. This bill takes aim at those in the wholesale and retail markets for gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, home heating oil, and biofuels who prey on their customers for their own unjust enrichment. The FTC is directed to define what price gouging actually is. And a very important point--this legal recourse and its enforcement provisions against gouging are always available, not just in times of natural or energy emergency. Mr. Speaker, this bill's hammer is triggered by consumer rip-offs, not bureaucratic proclamations. In addition, state attorneys general will be empowered to bring cases under the federal law and those cases can lead to extremely strong civil and criminal penalties in the multiple millions of dollars and the possibility of a visit to the nearest correctional facility. This is a very aggressive piece of legislation targeted at a problem that weakens this country not only in dollars but in what it does to the every day lives of all Americans--vacations missed, budgets broken, and business stretched thin. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5253, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act of 2006 and once and for all make it clear that we are serious about solving our energy challenges at home so we can be more successful in solving them abroad. This bill will serve us and our children well.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today is Asthma Awareness Day 2006. On Asthma Awareness Day, May 7, 2003, there were only 20 asthma- friendly States in the United States. Even more limiting, of those 20, only nine extended protection even further to anaphylaxis medication, like epinephrine auto-injectors. Today, historically, 47 States protect for asthma and 38 for asthma plus anaphylaxis, and the final three States have legislation pending to allow students to carry their medication. Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous positive turnaround in just a few years for our children. I am pleased with the momentous progress we have made in our Nation's capital and statehouses. I encourage all of us who work here or visit the Capitol today to stop by the Cannon Caucus Room from 11:30 to 4:00 and learn more about asthma. Get screened, take the test, and let us enjoy another successful Asthma Awareness Day.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 357) supporting the goals and ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on this resolution.

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 357, which supports the goals and ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month, beginning in May. Every year in the United States, about 1,000 children are born with cystic fibrosis, or CF, a life-shortening genetic disease. According to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, those children face a median life expectancy of 36 years, an average that, fortunately, has continued to increase as science and research have developed better treatment and drugs. And while a median life expectancy of 36 is unacceptably low, that figure is cause for hope for those living with the disease and, of course, their families. They know that in 1955, the year parents of children suffering from this disease formed the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, children born with CF usually did not live to attend preschool. As the life expectancy increases, those suffering with this disease and their families continue to work for a cure or a life-extending treatment. Madam Speaker, while a cure for cystic fibrosis remains illusive, the symptoms and effects of the disease are fairly simple. CF is one of the most common life-threatening genetic diseases in the United States. More than 30,000 people in the United States have CF, and over half of them are children. In addition, over 10 million Americans are unknowing, symptom-free carriers of the cystic fibrosis gene. Cystic fibrosis affects the lungs and digestive system. The defective gene that causes CF triggers the production of abnormally thick mucus in the lungs that leads to restricted breathing, recurring lung infections, and in many cases digestive problems. The infections deteriorate the lungs and their capacity to deliver oxygen to the body, a condition that worsens over time and in many cases even leads to death or the need for a lung transplant. One of the goals of H. Con. Res. 357 is to promote the need for early diagnosis and the importance of newborn screening so that treatment of children with CF can begin as soon as possible to improve their health and longevity. The five decades that have passed since the founding of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation have brought not only hope but years to the lives of those suffering from CF. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation continues to be at the forefront of making more with less in the area of drug discovery and development. The Therapeutics Development Program, TDP, created and launched by the CF Foundation, has pioneered new ways to conduct cutting-edge, lifesaving research in a cost-effective and efficient manner. This program now includes 18 major research institutions across the country in an established clinical trials network. The TDP provides innovative companies with funding, raised through private donations to the CF Foundation, to undertake research and development on promising new drug candidates, and supports an extensive pipeline of potential new therapies. In fact, the CF Foundation currently has more than 30 drugs and therapies in various stages of clinical trials, any one of which could dramatically improve the life of someone suffering from CF. I believe that the innovative programs like the Therapeutics Development Program are part of the blueprint for more efficient and cost-effective health care and should be supported. So, as you can see, Madam Speaker, CF Foundation- sponsored research is adding precious years to the lives of those living with the disease so that they might live long enough to benefit once a cure is found. Today there is more potential research on new drugs and therapies than funds to finance that lifesaving work. This is a problem created by a wealth of scientific riches, and one that I hope can be bridged by more public-private partnerships which leverage our world-class biotech and pharmaceutical companies with the capabilities of institutions like the National Institutes of Health to ensure that the discovery phase of identifying new drugs and compounds to treat cystic fibrosis continues. To that end the resolution before us today advocates strong partnerships between government resources like the NIH and nonprofits like the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation as a key means to improve care for those with ``orphan'' diseases like CF. Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend my friend and colleague Mr. Markey from Massachusetts for his leadership and work supporting this resolution and for our partnership cochairing a new Congressional Cystic Fibrosis Caucus. The Congressional Cystic Fibrosis Caucus, like this resolution, is intended to provide Members and the American public a better understanding of cystic fibrosis and the need to support the incredible work that is being done by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation as well as through public-private collaboration to find a cure. I would also like to thank all those Members on both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored H. Con. Res. 357 and those who have joined the Congressional Cystic Fibrosis Caucus. And anyone who is watching is welcome to call my office or Mr. Markey's office. We would like to have your support, and we look forward to it. So, my colleagues, please join me in honoring and supporting the goals and ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month by simply agreeing to H. Con. Res. 357. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 97 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the University of Florida's first-ever men's basketball national championship. Coach Billy Donovan and his young, explosive team beat UCLA, one of the most storied college basketball programs ever, 73-57. The Gators took the lead in the very beginning and never looked back. Truly a testament to the power of youth, the Gators were led by four sophomores and one junior. Coach Donovan himself became the second youngest coach to win a national title. In addition, he is now one of three people to coach a national champion and play in a Final Four. Florida is now one of only seven schools to win a national championship in football and basketball. While the University of Florida has had a reputation as a football school, this championship proves that Gator basketball has arrived. I congratulate the University of Florida on their victory. It is great to be a Florida Gator.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Florida Gators men's basketball team on their third Final Four appearance and the second in the past 5 years. Now, at the beginning of the season, not much was expected of these young Gators. However, they rose to a number two national ranking on the strength of a 17-game winning streak, and they continued that success through the post-season, winning the Southeastern Conference Tournament and then advancing to the Final Four with a 75-62 win over the top-seeded Villanova Wildcats. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday in Indianapolis, the Gators will face the George Mason University Patriots whose Cinderella story has been equally inspiring. In recognition of this event, I have offered a friendly wager of a case of Gatorade to my colleague, Tom Davis. Gatorade's creation in 1965 by Dr. Robert Cade at the University of Florida has marked the success of the University of Florida's athletic teams through the past decades and will hopefully aid in victory in the 2006 Final Four.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, a poll was released today which reaffirms what many on this side of the aisle, Republicans, are telling seniors at our town hall meetings: The Medicare prescription drug program is working. In a poll conducted last week by Ayres, McHenry & Associates, 6 out of 10 seniors who voluntarily enrolled in the Medicare Part D program reported that they are saving money in the program. A second survey by the same group found that 9 out of 10 seniors eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, dual eligibles, stated that they were having no problems using the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Eighty percent said the program covered the prescription drugs that they need. Now, you are not going to hear this good news from the Democrats on that side of the aisle. Seniors are saving money and now have more choices than they ever have had. Mr. Speaker, this is good news from these polls. The Medicare prescription drug program is presently working for America's seniors, and Democrats need to accept that.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the North Korean regime has the worst human rights record in the world. Citizens are denied the most fundamental freedoms in classic Communist fashion, the economy results in shortages and an ever-present threat of starvation. Additionally, the regime has divided citizens into 51 classes. At least 7 million citizens, more than one-third of the population, are regarded as members of a hostile class, categorized as a potential threat to the existence of this regime. Members of this class are held in one of North Korea's 12 known prison camps. According to an MSNBC news report from January 2003, one of these prison camps is literally three times the size of Washington, DC. Meanwhile, the State Security Agency maintains at least 12 political prisons and about 30 forced labor and reeducation camps. There are also rumors of a series of underground camps. No one knows how many exist and, of course, how many prisoners are being held. These Stalinist-style gulags await any citizen, even children, who dare to commit such crimes as reading a foreign newspaper, singing a foreign pop song, listening to a foreign radio broadcast, or making statements that could be interpreted as an insult to the regime. The camps combine starvation, hard labor and brutal and irrational punishments. In one camp, former inmates claim prisoners work in such hard conditions that 20 to 25 percent of the 50,000 prisoners die every year. To leave North Korea without official permission is an act of treason. The Communist regime maintains a series of detention facilities along the border with the People's Republic of China for refugees forcibly returned. Pregnant women endure forced abortions or have their infants killed just after birth on the off chance that they were impregnated by Chinese men. Everyone is then interrogated to determine the extent of their exposure to the Free World, literally having the truth beaten out of them. This determines whether the regime sends these refugees to a gulag facing certain death or to a gulag facing likely death. The massive mechanistic prison camp system, combined with the outlawing of immigration, has led many to refer to North Korea as ``the world's largest prison camp.'' Jasper Becker, former Beijing bureau chief for the South China Morning Post, has estimated that Kim Jong Il and his father, Kim Il Sung, are responsible for killing over 7 million Koreans, 3 million civilians in the Korean war, 3 million by deliberate famine, and at least 1 million more political prisoners either executed or worked to death. Mr. Speaker, even worse is the Free World's help that props up this regime. Since 1995, the United States has provided over $1.1 billion, about 60 percent of it for food aid. About 40 percent was energy assistance through the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Corporation, KEDO, a multilateral organization established in 1994 to provide energy aid in exchange for North Korea's pledge to halt its nuclear program. The Bush administration finally shut down the KEDO program earlier this year, long after North Korea had publicly violated the agreement that secured KEDO energy payments in the first place. Food aid to North Korea has also been an international humanitarian fraud. The Communist regime prevents donor agencies from operating in the country. The biggest suppliers of aid, China and South Korea, do little or no monitoring of what happens to the food that they supply to this country. The world's food and humanitarian aid rarely makes it to those suffering in North Korea. Instead, it has been used to feed Kim Jong Il's million-man army, almost 1 million people in his security forces, as a preference for the Communist Party elite. No such aid should be allowed against North Korea demonstrates tangible progress to freedom and transparency. Now some people worry about the risk of confronting and destabilizing a hostile and heavily armed power. These people should know that no good policy comes without risk. President Ronald Reagan did not coddle the Soviet Union, he did not offer to provide them the nuclear fuel they need to build nuclear weapons in the silly hope they would not build any. President Reagan took the struggle for freedom and democracy to the gates of the Soviet Union country itself.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to shine some light on the good economic news that continues to roll in. This is further proof that Republican pro-growth policies of low taxes are working for the American people. The economy grew at an annual rate of 1.6 percent in the final quarter of last year. January's unemployment rate fell to 4.7 percent, which is the lowest monthly rate since 2001, and lower than the average rate in the seventies, the eighties and the nineties. There have been 29 consecutive months of job gains. The economy has created over 2 million jobs over the past 12 months. Economists are now predicting that growth will clock in at an amazing 4.5 percent in the current January to March quarter. In order for this good news to last, Congress must fight its urge to spend too much and continue to foster a positive environment for the economy for it to thrive.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I would just say to this side, this bill has gone through so many iterations, and so many times we have looked at this. It includes 30 additional civil liberties safeguards. And, you know, I admit that your fighting against this bill has probably improved it a little bit. But at this point, we have done so much to help it. I think it is a very good bill. I commend the author, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for his patience all during this process. These new civil liberty safeguards include allowing recipients of search requests or national security letters to seek legal counsel for appealing the decision to the FISA court and mandated reporting to the public and Congress on the use of national security letters, data- mining and delayed-notice search warrants. This is a vigilant protector of civil rights and national security, and it is the right balance. It is critical that we pass this bill today. I would say in passing that part of the PATRIOT Act was a cargo amendment that I included. I thank the chairman for allowing me to do that. In Florida alone, local and State agencies joined together and developed a unified strategy for prevention and enforcement against cargo theft, resulting in about a 25 percent decrease in cargo thefts. Unfortunately, my colleagues, the FBI estimates, and these are only estimates because we do not have any way to track this information, overall national loss from cargo theft remains at almost $6 billion annually. The interagency cooperation must be expanded from the State level to include nation-wide enforcement. Cargo theft imperils our Nation's security, and data indicates profits from cargo theft often go to organized crime or to terrorist activities. So for that reason, for 2 years I have been working on this amendment, which is included as part of the PATRIOT Act, to, first of all, combat this crime by increasing mandatory minimum sentencing and directing consolidation of cargo theft trend data--simple collection of this cargo theft trend data into the federal Uniform Crime Reporting system, so in fact that system we have a better understanding of it, and we can coordinate between different law enforcement agencies. These are vital steps to fight this growing nation-wide threat, and I am pleased to have it included in the PATRIOT Act. I ask my colleagues to realize the amount of work that has gone into this bill. It is absolutely necessary we pass it. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman for your efforts to pass this critical legislation. Our founding fathers knew our young Nation faced dangerous security challenges from its amorphous and expansive border and aggressive European powers. With that in mind, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'' The situation confronting us today mirrors that of our founders. Our border is even larger and more difficult to control. With additional points of entry at every airport, prohibiting entry of those intent on doing harm is even more complex. Advanced technologies allow individuals across the oceans to coordinate attacks within our cities. This is an eventuality impossible for our founding fathers to foresee, and yet necessary for us to combat. We must keep pace with the changing environment. The PATRIOT Act equips us to do that by breaking down communication barriers between law enforcement and intelligence agencies, a weakness identified by the 9/11 Commission. In Florida, law enforcement increased interagency cooperation with impressive results. In 2001, local and state agencies joined together and developed a unified strategy for prevention and enforcement against cargo theft, resulting in a 25% decrease in cargo thefts. Unfortunately, the FBI estimates overall national loss from cargo theft remains more than $6 billion annually. Interagency cooperation must be expanded from the state level to include nationwide enforcement. Cargo theft imperils our national security, and data indicates profits from cargo theft often funds organized crime or terrorist activities. For two years, I have worked to pass legislation combating this crime by increasing mandatory minimum sentences and directing consolidation of cargo theft trend data into the federal Uniform Crime Reporting system to better coordinate enforcement activities. These are vital steps to fight this growing nationwide threat, and I am pleased they were included in this PATRIOT Act reauthorization. As we debate these amendments to the PATRIOT Act, I hear echoes of another founding father's words. Benjamin Franklin's assertion that, ``They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,'' resounds as an admonition to those of us standing in this chamber to ensure proper oversight and protect civil liberties. This legislation includes 30 additional civil liberties safeguards. These include: allowing recipients of search requests or National Security Letters to seek legal counsel for appealing the decision to the FISA Court, and mandated reporting to the public and Congress on the use of National Security Letters, data mining, and delayed notice search warrants. As vigilant protectors of national security, and critical guardians of civil liberties, with full realization of the immediate threat we face, I call upon my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Due diligence has been observed . . . investigated . . . executed . . . and critiqued. Now it is time to pass this Act.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Federal law ensuring that colleges and universities who receive Federal funds permit open access for military recruiting on their campus. This ruling will allow the United States military to recruit the best and the brightest this Nation has to offer and will also greatly enhance our national security. I commend the Supreme Court for upholding this law. This issue is of particular interest to me. I attended college on an Air Force ROTC scholarship and know firsthand the importance of the Armed Forces. Therefore, in order for the United States to win the global war on terrorism, the Armed Forces need access to the highest caliber of people, and that is why we must ensure equal access for military recruiters. In 1996, Congress enacted a provision of law that came to be known as the Solomon amendment. This provision is named for our former colleague from New York and former Rules Committee chairman, the late Jerry Solomon. This provision provides for the Secretary of Defense to deny Federal funding to colleges and universities if they do not provide military recruiters entry to campuses and access to students that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to any other employer. The Solomon amendment was made necessary when a number of universities began restricting the access of military recruiters because of disagreement with certain military policies, such as the military's ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy. Mr. Speaker, I will include the entire list of these universities in the Record. Monday's ruling stems from a challenge from a group of law schools on the constitutionality of the Solomon amendment. A number of universities are denying equal access to military recruiters in protest of the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy. Last year, I had an amendment on the floor that was patterned after the Solomon amendment, and it also passed. Mr. Speaker, some of the universities who are denying equal access to military recruiters, are also receiving millions and millions of hardworking Americans' tax dollars every year in terms of research dollars and other things. Harvard Law School, for example, allowed military recruiters to interview students at the offices of its Veterans Association, but did not use its open personnel to set up the interviews as it did for other recruiters. In the wake of the Supreme Court hearing last fall, Harvard has reversed its decision and now plans to fully cooperate with the military recruiters. Another example is Yale Law School, who had been letting recruiters use a room to meet with students, but had not been helping to arrange the interviews, as they did with other recruiters. These universities allow IBM, General Electric and other corporations full access, but not the military. Equal access for military recruiters is an urgent issue. With the U.S. engaged in the global war on terrorism, it is more important than ever for the Armed Forces to recruit high-quality, well-qualified and well-trained personnel. This is why it is so important that the Supreme Court made such a strong statement in support of full and equal access to military recruiters on campus. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the courts, said that the Solomon amendment ``neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything. Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy. Nothing about recruiting suggests that the law schools agree with any speech by recruiters, and nothing in the Solomon amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military's policies.'' The Court went on to say that the law regulates conduct, not speech, and the hosting of recruiters is not expressive conduct that sends out a message as a former protest. Mr. Speaker, so in conclusion, once again, I commend the Supreme Court for unanimously upholding the Solomon amendment. As the U.S. is engaged in the global war on terrorism, it is more vital than ever to our national security that the United States Armed Forces have access to recruit the best people to serve in this country.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this week the Tax Foundation, an educational foundation for taxpayers since 1937, released its much anticipated third edition of their State business tax climate index. It ranks the 50 States on how business friendly their tax systems are. The study finds the most business-friendly tax systems in Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. The least business-friendly tax codes were found in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine. Low-tax States are where the job growth is. Governors and businesses and residents want jobs to flow to their States. Low taxes will do that. So low taxes in America will also keep jobs here. So, Mr. Speaker, there is a cautionary tale from this report, reminding us that we are truly competing in a global economy, and we cannot ignore the fact that low taxes indeed create new jobs.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, in the State of the Union, the President focused on the need to not only beat the terrorists on their own soil, but to take the offensive in bringing the hope of political freedom and peaceful change to hopeless lands. I recently had the honor of meeting with our soldiers who are serving in Kosovo and are doing just that. I was glad to be able to thank them for their service and to hear their concerns. American troops have been keeping the peace in Kosovo, along with our NATO allies, since 1999. We have about 1,700 troops participating in peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, and we must let them know that their service is not forgotten. Their presence brings stability to a troubled region and supports the development of a functioning legal system, the respect for property rights, and the growth of a robust economy. These pillars will form the foundation of a free and democratic Kosovo, ensuring that our soldiers and their sacrifices will not be in vain.