Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to confide with my colleague that I am told that this is language that will basically reopen a base that was closed under BRAC, and that while the gentleman is under the interpretation he is under, there are many of us who believe it is quite different. While I greatly respect the gentleman, it seems to me this House of Representatives has to someday stand up to the Senate when they do this kind of stuff, sir. What we are seeing here is absolutely outrageous, and what would have been a preferred extension, in my judgment, with all due respect to my colleagues, would be to have allowed the President such time that he could have had an extension until he signed this legislation. And if he did not sign this legislation, we could have come back and corrected this. I am hopeful that before the night is out that we are going to delete section 1942. I do not know how it is going to happen, but, Lord knows, if it does not, we have basically done something that I think is shameful to the process and reflects badly not just on the Senate, but on the House that we would allow them.

Mr. SHAYS. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is making a case well beyond this issue. I would like to ask the gentleman a question, and would be happy to yield to him to respond. It was my understanding that this provision of 60 days had been shorter, and somehow people felt that by extending to 60 days, they had solved the objection to this bill. Is it true that when this bill came out of conference, it was less than 60 days?

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. SHAYS. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. SHAYS. Does the gentleman know the provision I am talking about? It says, ``Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall open the air field at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana.'' Open it.

Mr. SHAYS. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would love to have a dialogue with the gentleman bringing out the bill, but first will express my reservation of objection. In the full bill that we will be considering, there is a section 1942 entitled Opening of Airfield at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. It reads: ``Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force shall, (1) open the Air Field At Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana; and (2) enable flying operations for all fixed-wing aircraft at that base.'' My objection is that I understand this resolution extension will only go until August 14. That means that the President is forced to sign the bill, the ultimate bill that we pass, even if he has objections to the bill. I have deep concern that we are basically forcing the President to agree to an act that will reopen a base closed under BRAC without any options. And if the President does the right thing, which would be to veto this bill so that stuff like this is not made into law, then our government transportation shuts down. My reservation is that the extension is not long enough.

Mr. SHAYS. ``And enable flying operations for all fixed-wing aircraft at that base.'' It is opening a base. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to make a closing comment, and if I am not allowed to, I would object. And my closing comment is this. This is to open a base that was closed. This 60 days was added as a sop to the House, in my judgment, with all due respect, to somehow allow everybody to save face. We are not in session for all 60 days.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, is this the legislation extending time for the transportation bill?

Mr. SHAYS. Then, Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement. There are a whole host of reasons to support this legislation. CAFTA will benefit both the U.S. economy and the economies of the Central American nations. Opponents of CAFTA would have us believe the North American Free Trade Agreement moved all our jobs to Mexico and seriously harmed the American economy. Contrary to their assertion, our economy's strength is due in no small part to the advancement of free trade. Expanding trade is critical to strengthening our economy. This is especially true in Connecticut where our businesses exported $8.3 billion in 2002, up $1.1 billion since 1999. In fact, export-supported jobs accounted for an estimated 7.5 percent of the state's total private-sector employment. Many of my friends in the labor and environmental communities have expressed concern that signing this agreement will be bad for their interests. I strongly believe by integrating ourselves with these countries, we give ourselves greater leverage to work on enforcing labor standards and environmental safeguards. Only through isolation do we risk letting these countries slip down the very path these groups are concerned about. Furthermore, I believe the best way the United States can facilitate social and economic reforms in other countries is through an open dialogue and greater trade. Free trade leads to a richer and more educated populace, which leads to the expansion of democracy and a desire to be accepted as a full member in the world community. Leaders like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez are advancing an anti-American, anti-Western agenda in our hemisphere. It amazes me we would turn our back on leaders who are standing up and asking to be more closely linked with the United States. CAFTA is good for our economy and our workers, it's good for the economies of these countries and their workers, and it's good for the stability of our continent by promoting democratic governments. I urge this legislation's passage.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The Government Reform Committee, of which I am vice-chairman, has held hearings and briefings on postal reform for several years now, and I am glad to see our efforts come to fruition today. The United States Postal Service has been forced to cut back on its service due to serious financial challenges. H.R. 22 is an effort to modernize our Nation's postal laws for the first time in 35 years. It is intended to help ensure the United States Postal Service can survive in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Due to the increasing use of electronic forms of communication, such as email, first-class mail volume is declining, but postal addresses are increasing. In lieu of simply increasing rates, an entire reform of the postal service is necessary. H.R. 22 would require the Postal Service to operate in a more business-like manner by creating a modem system of rate regulation, establishing fair competition rules and a more powerful regulatory commission. H.R. 22 will also promote both price stability and pricing flexibility. Giving the Postal Service pricing flexibility will allow USPS to price its core mail products in a way that keeps them competitive and, quite literally, in the mail. By limiting the amount of future postage rate increases, however, the bill also takes an important step towards encouraging the Postal Service to increase mail volume and keep the mailbags full while giving mailers predictability and stability. Universal postal service should be the first and foremost goal of reform. This can only be accomplished if the financial and operational crisis facing the United States Postal Service is met with innovative and bold action.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for their focus on this legislation. This is a very exciting time. I know it is a contentious time. I just returned from my ninth visit to Iraq yesterday morning. My purpose in going was to meet with the drafters of the new Constitution, to express our gratitude for their work and appreciation for their bravery, but also to make sure they realize that they have an awesome opportunity to a create successful country if they recognize that when they move toward democracy, it has to include certain vital components. Democracy obviously involves majority rule. That comes easy to folks. They get majority rule but they also need to recognize the importance of minority rights. And right along with that is the fact that democratic countries that succeed are those democracies that recognize women are an equal part. When you look at the gross domestic product of the Arab nations, it is astounding to recognize when you take in aggregate their total GNP and in spite of controlling nearly two-thirds of the world's oil, they still have a collective gross domestic product only equal to Spains'. The message is clear, when you cut out half of your populace, you are not going to prosper and grow. So it is in the self-interest of every man and woman in Iraq to make sure women have an equal role in the activities of their country. When I met this past weekend with Iraqi women in Amman and in Baghdad, and met with men and women who were participating in their constitutional convention, it was clear they feel like they are the Jeffersons and the Madisons and the Adamses and the Franklins and the Shermans. They know they have this unbelievable opportunity to shape a great nation. It is right for our country to encourage them to do the right thing, to tell them we know what has helped us succeed. But in the end, it is their country and they will decide what is in their best interest. They are going to decide, but if they want to succeed, and Lord knows we want them to, they need to make sure that along with guaranteeing majority rule and minority rights, right along with that there is the very real need to guarantee women are not only protected as equal but have an active role in their government. Last June when the President demanded we transfer power to the Iraqis, there were many who did not agree with him. We took this American face and transferred it to Iraqis, and Iraqis began to be in charge of their own country. They had their election this January. More Iraqis participated in their election on a percentage basis than Americans participate in their own elections. And now they will met this August 15 deadline. They have assured me they are going to have their constitutional draft done, they are going to have their referendum on the 15th of October, and elect their new government in December. They will succeed. What is astounding is in spite of the bombings, in spite of the chaos, it has not deterred the Iraqis from moving their country forward. I am going to conclude my remarks by again thanking the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) for their work, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for his work. I believe Iraqis know the importance of what they are doing, and that this little nudge from us is important, but ultimately they get it. They recognize women have a huge role to play in this potentially powerful country, with 10 percent of the world's oil, with all the water that a Middle East country could want. God bless our country, and God bless our new fledgling democracy in Iraq.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on July 25, I was returning to Washington from an oversight trip in Iraq and, therefore, missed three recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted yes on recorded vote No. 417, yes on recorded vote No. 418, and yes on recorded vote No. 419.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I just want to congratulate him, the ranking member of the committee and particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for what he has done for over 10 years in this battle. His effort is awesome. This legislation is needed. We believe in universal coverage for mail, but know cost savings need to be made. Congratulations to all of you for doing such a great job in bringing this legislation before us.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. The Postal Service delivers to 140 million sites, and there is about a million new sites every year. It provides universal service. When I hear my colleagues talk about fine-tuning this bill, that is what we have been doing for the last 10 years. This is a bill that has been fine-tuned, and it has been fine-tuned in a way that has gotten support from disparate parts. The employees who work at the postal system know that more than 200,000 jobs are going to be lost. That is why we opposed the first amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) because we need employee buy-in. The reason why we opposed this amendment, it seems to fail to understand that there is competition with FedEx, with UPS, with DHL and many more things. They are also competing with the newspapers. We are trying to provide flexibility to the postal system. So I understand the concept of fine-tuning, but I would dispute significantly the failure to recognize that the bill has been fine- tuned. And when I am hearing my colleagues offer their amendments, I feel like they have not read the bill, because the bill allows for competition, it allows for flexibility, and it has buy-in in all of these disparate parts. This amendment needs to be defeated if we are going to pass this bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act. This legislation would allow small businesses to pool their resources into what are known as Association Health Plans, AHPs, to purchase health insurance. Pooled alliances, including AHPs, help control health care costs by permitting individuals to use their collective bargaining power to win cost concessions from insurance companies. These alliances also achieve economies of scale for administrative functions--substantially cutting overhead costs, which currently amount to between 30 and 40 cents of every premium dollar paid by small businesses to insurers. Purchasing alliances have been a popular response in many States to the problems many self-employed and small business owners have had securing affordable health insurance for themselves or their employees. While I sensitive to the concerns many disease advocacy groups have about this legislation, the fact is this legislation provides the same exemption from State benefit mandates for small businesses already enjoyed by large employers. The cost savings from avoiding benefit mandates has been estimated to be between 4 and 13 percent. This could make a huge difference for small businesses looking to offer their employees health insurance. Because small businesses are extremely cost-sensitive, studies indicate that even a 5 percent reduction in costs will result in a 10 to 15- percent increase in small businesses offering health insurance. The legislation also protects against these plans ``cherry-picking'' the healthiest employees by restricting the ability of self-insured health plans to be qualified as an AHP. Unless a self-insured plan is in existence before the date of enactment, it would be required to offer membership to a broad cross-section of trades or to employers representing at least one higher-risk occupation. Additionally, AHPs must comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which prohibits group health plans from excluding high-risk individuals with high claims experience. The bottom line is this legislation will help small businesses, which are the engine in our economy, provide health insurance to their employees. I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. A year ago today, the 9/11 Commission released its report. This report outlined 41 recommendations to protect this Nation from future terrorist attacks. It is crucial we ensure the implementation of these recommendations. The 9/11 Commission produced what I feel is a sacred document. Their conduct should bring pride to all Americans because they realized that their mission was larger than partisan politics and acted accordingly. They completed this undertaking with determination, clarity, and vision. On behalf of a grateful Nation, we pledge to continue to work to make their entire vision reality. Congress and the administration have made many significant changes over the years to improve the security of the homeland. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act signed by the President in December of 2004 was a critical step forward in reorganizing our intelligence community, creating a Director of National Intelligence with personnel and budgetary authority, creating in statute a National Counterterrorism Center, improving our transportation security, and making important immigration reforms. There are still challenges, however, that need to be met. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, for example, should be operating and should be mandated with robust powers to oversee the government's adherence to the guidelines set forth by the 9/11 Commission. This board is critical in ensuring a balance between civil liberties and security. In addition, more attention needs to be given to aviation security, mass transit issues, and first responders. We need to inspect air cargo that rides in the hold of passenger aircraft, and we must tighten security around mass transit areas. Furthermore, our first responders must have appropriate communications. Finally, the 9/11 Commission concluded that Congress needed to dramatically strengthen oversight and focus accountability. The commission recommended a single principal point of oversight and review for homeland security in each House of Congress, preferably a standing committee on homeland security and dedicated appropriations subcommittees on intelligence. We have a dedicated committee in the House of Representatives on homeland security, but it needs to be strengthened. The Senate still does not have such a committee for Homeland Security. Today's anniversary reminds us how important it is we implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and how important it is we protect our Nation from those who would do us harm.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the Cold War is over and the world is a more dangerous place. The strategy that we used to have of containment, react and mutually assured destruction went out the window on 9/11. Lord, it probably went out earlier, we just did not get it. We need now to be able to detect in order to prevent, and our intelligence community needs the capability and the tools so they can detect and prevent. We are not going to be able to harden a subway site, a bus station, a train station. We can have more people, dogs, cameras, lights, we can do a lot of things to help, but we cannot stop it unless we have the tools. We do not want to use the criminal means to go after terrorists because you have to wait until the crime has been committed. We want to prevent not a crime from being committed; we want to prevent a terrorist attack from being committed. So give them the tools. The PATRIOT Act does it. We have seen it operate for 4 years. It has been amazing how well it has operated. When people talk about libraries, why in the world would we want to make a library a free terrorist zone? We allow our forces to go in for a crime in a library. Why should they not be allowed to go in for a terrorist issue?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I have made eight trips to Iraq since April 2003, and will be going again this weekend. I have traveled with the military and I have also traveled with nongovernment organizations outside the umbrella of the military. I have literally talked with hundreds of Iraqi citizens, and I know their greatest fear. Their greatest fear is, that we will leave. That is what they have told me. They think we will leave them. It is vitally important to the future of peace and prosperity in the Middle East and, in fact, to the entire world that the United States maintain its commitment, meet history's challenge, and assist that nation to stay on the course towards stability, democracy and economic vitality. The United States has set many important benchmarks. We sought to transfer power to an Iraqi government on June 28, 2004, and we did. We wanted to support the Iraqis in organizing a free and fair election and, on January 31, along with U.S. and international assistance, the Iraqis held their landmark election, their first in 50 years. It was thrilling to witness. Women forced the men to come out and vote. As we speak, all elements of Iraqi society, Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are, working to draft a constitution and will hold a national referendum on the document on October 15. And, in spite of the threats against them, they are persevering. During our visits to Iraq, we observed our troops training the Iraqi security forces, their police, their border patrol, their army. And as President Bush has said, as the Iraqis step up, Americans can step down. That is the plan. Like the other goals we have committed to in Iraq, we will stay our course. Our withdrawal from Iraq will be made consistent with, as the amendment states, our foreign policy and national security goals relating to a free and stable Iraq and, thus, a free and stable world. Mr. Chairman, Iraqis are making significant progress. I would like to read a short passage from an e-mail my niece just received from a soldier who just returned after 15 months risking his life for Iraqis and for the national security of the United States. This is what he said: ``Despite what you might hear elsewhere,'' like in this chamber I might add, ``the tide has turned in the Middle East and democracy is taking hold. There is much work yet to be done,'' he continues, ``but we should all be excited by the progress made so far. Just think about it! Government `of the people, by the people, for the people' has found a foothold in, of all places, the Middle East!'' And, he continues, ``Words are hard to come by to express my exuberant hope for the future of the Iraqi people and the rest of the Middle East.'' Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with this soldier's sentiments. As I witnessed Iraq's election, it is clear the only real losers are the terrorists and insurgents trying to stop the march of democracy. In defiance of the terrorists and insurgents, Iraqi men, women and children came out in droves. There was a tangible sense of pride when the Iraqis dipped their index finger in a well of ink and cast their vote. One voter expressed gratitude to me when he said, ``Like you in the United States, I'm getting to choose my own leaders.'' We need to continue the process of supporting this nascent democracy and providing the new Iraqi government and its people with the physical, financial and moral support to secure their nation and ensure liberty thrives. I support the hard work of the International Relations Committee on the underlying legislation and the gentlelady's amendment and urge my colleagues to support its adoption.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of international wildlife conservation efforts and the Global Environmental Facility, GEF. Protecting and preserving our environment is one of the most important duties I have as a Member of Congress. We simply won't have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways. I support maximizing the GEF's resources, leveraging the highest possible contributions from the other donor countries, and demonstrating U.S. leadership on international environmental issues. The GEF is the primary financing mechanism for important environmental work around the world, helping developing countries address the many environmental challenges associated with ending poverty and enhancing economic development. Since its establishment in 1991, the GEF has provided $5 billion in grants, leveraged $16 billion in co-financing for projects in 140 countries around the world, and has provided more than 4,000 grants directly to community groups and non- governmental organizations. The U.S. has provided close to $1 billion to the GEF over this same time frame. Because other countries' contributions are indexed to the United States' level of support, we have the ability to either gather great resources for the global environment or greatly limit the international response to issues such as tropical forest loss and the decline in coral reefs worldwide. Funding the GEF is a good investment. Choosing to make the highest commitment to the GEF will truly help define American leadership on environmental issues to the rest of the world.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on June 28, I was attending a funeral and missed 2 recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote number 324 and ``yes'' on recorded vote number 325. I also missed recorded vote number 331. Had I voted, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would increase funding for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458), to $1.5 million. The bill currently reserves $750,000 of the $53 million budget of the Executive Office of the President for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The amendment would reserve $3 million of this $53 million budget. This level of funding is closer to what was initially given to the 9/11 Commission. The purpose of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is to ensure the protection of civil liberties by the federal government. The appropriate amount of funding is crucial in ensuring that privacy and civil liberties concerns are appropriately considered. This will prove significant in the implementation of laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect our Nation against terrorism. In addition, the additional funding will allow the board to develop the infrastructure they need to do their job and will demonstrate Congress's intentions to fully support this significant board. We certainly understand the need to aggressively fight the war on terror, but the 9/11 Commission Report reminds us that, ``The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home. Our history has shown that this insecurity threatens liberty at home. Yet if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.'' The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an important body. We must do everything we can to ensure its efficiency and operation.