Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my full support for H.R. 2634, a bill that would provide for greater responsibility in lending and expanded cancellation of debts owed to the United States and the international financial institutions by low-income countries, and for other purposes.

The Biblical scripture love thy neighbor, does not just call for the expression of care and concern for neighbors who live in close proximity. It also calls for reaching out to neighbors world wide. I believe it is especially important to be concerned about and help our neighbors who live in countries that are challenged daily with enormous issues involving poverty, hunger, homelessness, high unemployment, crime, illiteracy, and HIV/AIDS. Some of these countries include Angola, Haiti, Liberia, and Kenya just to name a few.

I support this bill because it could help our neighbors who are struggling everyday to live with and combat very difficult social and economic problems. I suspect that if economically disadvantaged countries were in a position to resolve their problems without assistance, they would. Helping to resolve these issues would lead to improvements in the quality of life for our neighbors, global economic stability, and world peace.

Jubilee USA Network, one grassroots organization that consists of churches and community organizations, has been dedicated to educating members of Congress and the public since the late 1990s on this issue. Their hard work, along with other organizations has created a movement that has made a difference. Some 30 nations have benefited from different types of debt relief estimating approximately $80,000,000,000.

Other notable progress has been made with this issue. Agreements made with the African Development Bank, the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund have eliminated debts by some poor countries.

To observe the success thus far, Jubilee USA Network held a prayer breakfast on October 16, 2007, in the Rayburn House Office Building. From the overseas community, the prayer breakfast was attended by the Honorable Ombeni Sefue, Tanzanian Ambassador to the United States, the Honorable Given Lubinda, Member of Zambia Parliament, and Rt. Rev. Jean Zache, Episcopal Bishop of Haiti. It is important for the U.S. to gain support for the debt relief of poor countries as a part of its foreign policy and I thank Jubilee USA Network for continuing to raise awareness of this issue.

Further, I thank my colleagues Maxine Waters, Spencer Bachus, Carolyn Maloney, Donald Payne, Emmanuel Cleaver, Barbara Lee, and Luis Gutierrez for introducing this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which is a bill to support humanity.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend and colleague for yielding and giving me the opportunity to rise in support of this bill.

I am confident that this Congress will be noted for the initiative that we are voting on today and that the American people will not be as concerned with the process and the procedure as they would be as to what did the Congress do in terms of dealing with the issue of global warming as well as relieving us of the dependency on foreign oil.

These are the crucial issues that Americans have looked to us to deal with. And I don't think it can be challenged that although there are those who have objections that it is not all that they would want it to be, it is a step that all of us in Congress should be proud that we moved forward.

The Clean Renewable Energy and Conservation Tax Act of 2007, as included in H.R. 6, presents a step in the right direction to present solutions to the problems that our great Nation and, indeed, the world are facing.

What did we do? To accelerate the use of clean, domestic, renewable energy sources and alternative fuels; to promote the use of energy- efficient products and practices and conservation; and to increase research and development in the deployment of clean, renewable energy and efficiency technologies.

The tax title of H.R. 6 makes good on this promise. The compromise package includes robust incentives for renewable energy production, increased efficiency, plug-in electric drive vehicles, and incentives for carbon capture, as well as the sequestration of coal demonstration projects.

The package facilitates and advances the development of advanced electricity infrastructure, it contains incentives to mitigate carbon remissions, it promotes the production of renewable energy and security of our domestic fuel supply, and it encourages energy savings and efficiency.

This package cost is fully offset by including certain provisions that were

loopholes that were undeserved of being given to oil and gas giveaways, not to the smaller suppliers of oil, but to the very largest that have had obscene profits without the benefits of the technology necessary to remove the dependency.

Specifically, the package will repeal the domestic manufacturing incentive for the top five integrated producers while freezing reductions at 6 percent for all others in the oil and gas sector. The package tightens foreign tax credit rules for foreign oil and gas extraction income and foreign oil-related income.

I want to take this particular time to thank Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and, more particularly, John Dingell for bringing together the interests and concerns of the standing committees and having us come forward as a body to fulfill the commitment that we made earlier on that we were going to respond to the needs of the people of our great Nation and certainly to the people of the world.

I do hope that while there has been a lot of partisanship in terms of lack of cooperation on the other side, that at the end of the day when people at town hall meetings or our children and grandchildren would ask the questions, what did we do, we can say we supported this great historic piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute one of Jamaica's favorite sons, Herb McKenley--a world-class track star whose awe- inspiring athletic feats filled the streets of Jamaica with pride. Noted as one of the island's greatest athletes ever, McKenley brought home an Olympic gold medal in 1952 as part of the country's relay team. A man of limitless determination and impressive humility--once claiming that his running philosophy was to simply ``run as fast as I can, as long as I can''--McKenley set a slew of world records and earned myriad accolades to his name. His recent passing marks the culmination of a life spent sprinting towards goal after goal, and reaching every one of them.

New York fans were treated to the sight of the 6-foot-1 dynamo whizzing down the indoor tracks at the old Madison Square Garden for the Millrose Games. He set the then-world record for a 440-yard sprint in 1947, finishing it in 46.3 seconds at a time when tracks were clay or dirt--not the artificial surfaces of today. His second world record was set a year later, when he ran 440 yards in 45.9 seconds. He nabbed a Silver Medal in the 1948 London Olympics and two more in the 1952 Olympics in Helsinki, missing the gold in all three to heartbreaking, photo finishes. The powerfully built man with an 8-foot stride is forever memorialized in Jamaica by the Herb McKenley Crescent, and not long before his passing, he was awarded its third highest honor, the Order of Merit.

His life's achievements read as one amorous letter to his native Jamaica. Born in the city of Clarendon on July 10, 1922, he sometimes skipped the bus after discovering that running got him places faster. One of those places was to college, when he became the first Jamaican sprinter to receive a college scholarship in the United States for the University of Illinois. After racking up his world-renowned honors, he coached Jamaica's national team for 20 years, between 1954 and 1973, and served as president of Jamaica's Amateur Athletic Association for 12. A celebration of his life is, ultimately, a celebration of Jamaica, and the permanent stamp it has left on the cultural, athletic, and historic narrative of the world.

It is in the spirit of great mourning but also of great pride that we commemorate his legacy. He has forever etched his story into the Jamaican consciousness, impressing upon us New York track fans the strength in being unapologetically persistent and passionate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support naming the great hall at the Capitol Visitor Center the ``Emancipation Hall.'' It is in the spirit of this country's great advances--particularly in solidifying our most precious values of freedom, equality, and justice--that I urge this body to move forward with this measure. Let the tenets of our great democracy ring down that hall--and throughout all the halls of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice to the many somber ones already extending sympathy and well wishes to the people of Mexico after the extensive flooding there last Saturday. The images were startling and sobering--a dramatic reminder of our own travails following Hurricane Katrina, as thousands in Mexico waited for rescue atop their rooftops. The southeastern state of Tabasco was struck the most crippling blow, as water inundated its capital city, Villahermosa, and affected as many as 1 million of the state's 2.2 million residents.

Words can only go so far. We should offer any and all resources that might soften the devastation in Mexico. When our struggling neighbors cry out, America heeds their calls. One of the worst natural disasters in that country's history requires immediate and attentive support.

We are with Mexico in this time of tribulation. This call to action merits our full endorsement--and the Mexican people, our most genuine compassion.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in reverence of the 100 years Augustus Freeman ``Gus'' Hawkins, the former representative from Los Angeles, fought on this Earth for the causes of justice and equality. Prior to his passing, he had been the oldest former member of Congress, and the longevity of his legacy will easily match the longevity of his years.

He was the first African American elected to the House from California--and, indeed, from the entire western United States--as well as a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He was instrumental in the passage of the watershed Civil Rights Act of 1964, sponsoring its equal employment section setting up the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

We honor him for the strides our community, and our country, took under his stewardship, and for his impeccable sense of purpose that inspires us today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my full support for the Second Chance Act of 2007, a bill to reauthorize the grant program for reentry of ex-offenders into the community.

With the dramatic increase in criminal convictions involving illegal drugs since the 1980's, the Nation's prisons have become severely overcrowded. As a result, every day hundreds of men and women are released from prison into their communities for the difficult task of restarting their lives.

It is even more difficult for those who have been incarcerated for a lengthy amount of time, those with limited education, and those who lack basic job skills. These men and women need assistance transitioning back into the community. Some assistance is needed with locating housing, finding employment, getting drug treatment, and mentoring.

This bill would provide that assistance. It is crucial to provide that assistance because it will reduce recidivism, improve lives, and improve communities. At a time when communities all across our great country have been torn apart by crime and drugs, we need to do all we can to help Americans who need a second chance at life. Let's send a message to America that we care about those who need help getting on their feet.

I thank my colleague Danny Davis for introducing this important bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge that more be done to reduce the rates of recidivism in our Nation's swelling prisons. We must work--intelligently and compassionately--to better reintegrate former prisoners into our society, and the Second Chance Act of 2007 is effective on both counts. It intelligently saves taxpayer dollars and works to bolster public safety, investing resources in a consortium of services proven to keep ex-offenders on the right path. It compassionately addresses the prevalence of substance abuse and poor mental health in that group, and strives to strengthen broken families so that children may stand to benefit.

Our prison system is a revolving door, leaving many without the ample skill or support necessary to become productive members of society. It's why a staggering majority of state prisoners are released only to find themselves back behind bars at least 3 years later. An increasing number of formerly incarcerated citizens are without suitable education, physical and mental health, employment, or mentoring services--the kind this measure would assist in providing.

A central tenet of our criminal justice system is rehabilitation. We must not abandon that fruitful and moral imperative. About 650,000 people are released from prison each year, and it is incumbent upon us to take preventive measures for the sake of our communities and our children. We owe it to them to do far, far more.

Mr. Speaker, distinguished members of the Rules Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity, and thank you for allowing me to follow my friend, Mr. Dreier. I just hope that I don't drink the water on that side of the aisle because it's very difficult for me to follow in the logic.

Let's talk about where we are in complete accord. Whoever thought of this cockamamie idea in 1969 was wrong. And as far as the voters are concerned, you can call yourself Republican or Democrat, who now holds them hostage, but if we don't give them relief, you can bet your life it's going to be the Congress of the United States and this President.

The President realizes we should eliminate this. He hasn't given us a plan, an idea, a thought, just get rid of it. And the Congressional Budget Office says that if we don't get rid of it, that $50 billion will be coming into our budget, we will have $50 billion. Common logic would dictate that if we do get rid of the AMT, which is the right thing to do, that we will lose $50 billion from the budget. What happens at home? What happens with a corporation? What happens with this congressional board of directors if we find with the budget that $50 billion that's missing? One of the things we can do is cut spending, by what? $50 billion. Another thing we could do is say forget about it. We did it before with the tax cut, just borrow the money. Just borrow $50 billion. I guess you can call that repealing. Or we could say the responsible thing to do is raise the additional revenue.

Standing by itself, forgetting the fact that it's a pay-for, who in the world would believe that it's fair for corporations and partnerships to be doing the same work, managing other people's money, being successful, making this great contribution to society, except one group pays 15 percent because they've created the imagination that their work is really capital, when they take no risk, and the others give 35 percent. Fairness dictates this is not a tax increase. This is a closing of a loophole, and you should be proud to participate in that.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 809, I call up the bill (H.R. 3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I hope that this could be considered the National Lobbyist Day for the middle class, because, certainly, this is what we are trying to do.

Let's talk about the issues that we agree on. The alternative minimum tax was a bad idea when it got started in 1969; it's a worse idea now. If the House and Senate and President fail these taxpayers that are being held hostage for a tax that everyone knows is unfair and inequitable and should never have existed, then it would not be a Republican or Democratic issue; it would be that this country let them down. In doing so, we would have violated the trust that we hope that people would have in the tax system. At the end of the day we are committed to eliminate this tax.

My good friend Mr. McCrery and I had agreed early on that the only way you can tackle such a big fiscal problem is through tax reform. So it's clear that we can't do that this year; and so if we do nothing, 23 million hardworking people would be hit with this unfair tax, and we are committed that it's not going to happen. We can talk about that, but I don't think it's necessary.

As far as the extenders are concerned, I really think they speak for themselves. Mr. McCrery and I wish we had enough time to really study each and every one of them as well as other parts of the Code to see whether or not it serves any economic function, but time is not our friend, and so we agreed that we would extend these expiring provisions and review them when we have more time next year. So that's not an issue.

The issue has to be how do you pay for it. This is where we are going to have some major fiscal and political problems. Why? Because the Congressional Budget Office would say that if we did nothing and this unfair tax was not changed, that we would raise $50 billion. That means that even though they may think and hope that we don't do this, they haven't scored that we have to recognize that $50 billion is not going to be there and we, abiding by what we think is fiscally sound provisions in PAYGO, have to recognize that if we do the right thing, we'll be $50 billion short.

What are our options? One, to cut spending by $50 billion. Well, theoretically it may be an option, but politically it's not.

The second thing we could do is raise the revenue. Very interesting, because the major part of the debate if we had time would be if you saw the most outrageous abuse of the tax system where someone was getting preferential treatment and that the only reaction would be how could that happen, and you wanted to close it, take my word for it, to the person that you are closing, what they call an incentive will be considered by them as a tax increase.

Even Secretary Paulson, who wants us to dramatically reduce the corporate rate of taxes, I can't wait to hear how he intends to pay for it, because I know he is going to be talking about unfair advantages that's in the Code, and some Democrat is going to call it a tax increase if he closes the loopholes.

It's really a semantic thing; it's a political thing. But I suggest to you that even if we were not looking at this as a revenue raiser, and you take a look at what we are using, how could you possibly call it a tax increase when we are trying to bring some degree of equity to the system?

It's simple: when people are doing their job, and, I might add, a very good job, in managing other people's money, in creating jobs, in making the economy more prosperous, and making hundreds of millions and billions of dollars

because they have earned it the hard way, creative fiscal management.

And they pay 35 percent in taxes because it's their income, the same way you sell a house, it's your income. You have a law case and they give it to you, it's your income and you pay 35 percent income.

Now, we would like to believe that capital gains taxes means that you're special people, you actually are investing capital. My God, you're taking risks, and so we're going to give you a lower tax rate of 15 percent. But if you find someone who would say that, well, I'm not taking risk but I'm a partnership, and I really think that the way they're paying me, even though it's the same as the competitors are being paid, I have decided that this has been a return on a capital investment. Why shouldn't all of the debate today be on the turning point? When two people are doing the same thing equally as well, and really, being rewarded in a very generous way, why should one group be treated differently than the other group? And if you want to call it a tax increase and bringing equity and fairness to the system and making the field even as it relates to the Tax Code, let's talk about this, because I'll bring some arguments and statements for the people doing the same job and paying 35 percent interest, and they're just as creative, just as good, and they ain't thinking about leaving the business. And so that ends the argument, except for the ones that I'm anxious to hear from my dear friends on the other side of the aisle, because they're not just saying that they're going to stick with their buddies with carried interest. They're saying that we really don't have to deal with this at all. And once I'm convinced that they're right, I'm going to try to do this at home, and that is, we expected $50 billion. You're going to have to live without the $50 billion, but you don't have to cut your expenses by $50 billion, nor do you have to raise the revenue for $50 billion. As a matter of fact, you don't have to do anything. Act like it never happened.

This is not a tax cut. This is preventing a tax increase, so therefore, the money that you expected, the $50 billion, you shouldn't have.

Now, on our side of the aisle, we spell that B-O-R-R-O-W-I-N-G, ``borrowing.'' I know that word is so distasteful to you, but where I got it from was Chairman Greenspan. He said, I supported the Bush tax cuts, but I wanted them to really cut spending. And what did they do?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee that has really drafted most of this legislation, Congressman Neal of Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I just hope that the minority leader recognizes that we in the House have a constitutional responsibility to either raise the revenue, notwithstanding what the other body may or may not do, and that should never inhibit us from doing what we consider is the right thing to do, because constitutionally we are right.

Well, it was about the Panama complication, because it was my understanding, to a large extent, that it would be the administration to make the decision or to respond to the answer that you asked of the majority leader. And it's because of the complication that they'll have to decide, politically, as to how they want to handle it, because it goes beyond a trade agreement. It's involved with State Department policy.

And I always get the impression, since the FTA with Korea that's been left out of the discussion with me, that when the administration believes it has completed its negotiation on the executive level, then they too would be coming back to the Congress.

And of course Colombia has its own special problems, which we can talk about at a different time. So I just wanted to say, as it relates to Panama and Korea, it was my impression that the administration has to make some major decisions before we can respond.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time that remains.

Madam Speaker, this is a very exciting, historic day for me. It was an opportunity to break a deadlock of lack of civility on the Ways and Means Committee, which I really, deeply appreciate being a member, as well as being Chair; to get to know Jim McCrery, not as a Republican, but as someone that we can have serious philosophical and political differences, at the same time want to do what's best for our constituents and our country; for Sandy Levin who is more than a Member of Congress, but in the marrow of his bones he understands what it is for working people to have opportunity

to have self-esteem and to want to do for themselves, their community and their children; and to have a Speaker like Nancy Pelosi, who's prepared to think as to what's not best for Democrats or even the Congress, but what's best for the country and to encourage people who have different views to come together, so that nobody from any country could say that we have a trade policy that's Republican or Democrat, but we have in the United States of America a United States trade policy.

This is a very historic vote. It breaks the ice and opens an opportunity. But also it brings about a lot of candid discussion. And I would suggest, for any Member that has campaigned against trade, that said it over and over that trade is bad, or any person who's campaigned against NAFTA or CAFTA, or all of those things which this is not, then you owe it to yourself and you owe it to your constituents to vote against this bill, because if, in your conscience, you believe that things are so bad in your district, people have lost jobs, lost homes, lost hope, and this country has let them down and the multinationals have let them down and trade agreements have let them down, then your conscience demands that you vote ``no'' because this is what you believe in and this is what you should do.

But for those people who truly believe that they come from communities that God has blessed them with the opportunity to grow more food than this Nation needs, to make more equipment than this Nation needs, and to know that in their towns and villages and congressional districts, they cannot eat and they cannot use, for those people who understand that exporting things means not that we're trying to help other countries, but we need the talents, we need the productivity, we need the competition, we need the workers for the Nation to survive, for those people like the State of New York, there are patches there that people have no hope for the future, and they would want to vote against it.

But they'd better not talk with my mayor, because services are going to be a boon directly for all the people in our city.

For those people on our farms that want to get rid of their surplus and sell it, for those people who really believe that we've got a long way to go to get the hopes of Americans up and to have our U.S. trade Representative, our multinationals to understand that it's not just a good agreement for the shareholders, but it is a good agreement for America, for those that believe in the Speaker and the minorities, that we're doing what's best, not for labor and not just for fund raising, but we're doing what we think is best, don't challenge our integrity. Vote your conscience.

But this is a heck of a time to make certain that we're not known to be against trade. We're for trade. We're for trade that makes sense in terms of honesty, job creation, and what's good for each and every American.

Do we have a long way to go? Yes.

Is this a beginning? You bet your life.

Anytime we're taking down trade barriers and countries are open to buy what we make in the U.S.A., it's almost unpatriotic not to let them do what we do best.

But don't you challenge my integrity, and don't do it for the Speaker, because I won't challenge your ``no'' because you're doing what you think is the right thing.

Madam Speaker, I rise to seek my colleagues' help with the humanitarian crisis in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, and the Bahamas, whose devastation many have compared to Hurricane Katrina.

Last week, Tropical Storm Noel became the deadliest storm of the 2007 hurricane season, responsible for at least 140 deaths throughout the Caribbean. Flooding and mudslides caused by the heavy rainfall led to the displacement of more than 80,000 people and isolated small towns and villages in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, and the Bahamas.

The track of this deadly storm brought back those poignant reflections of how helpless we felt when Katrina hit, how frustrated we were at not being able to help, and the lessons we learned from that storm. Yet now a new storm has come with the same intensity and devastation and we have a chance to do something about it.

Our Government is beginning to respond. This past weekend, three U.S. Coast Guard helicopters began conducting search and rescue operations and assisted with aerial assessments of affected areas to determine needs. The Defense Department has sent helicopters and personnel to the Dominican Republic and Peace Corps volunteers in the country have been dispatched to affected areas to help.

In all, the United States Government has contributed over $350,000 directly to the Dominican Government, $200,000 to the Pan American Health Organization and $100,000 to Catholic Relief Services, CRS, and World Vision for the local water, shelter materials, and other emergency relief supplies. Our Government has also provided, through U.S. Agency for International Development and the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, an additional $500,000 for emergency relief supplies, water, sanitation, and hygiene support, and other emergency relief activities.

Yet more help is needed. The U.N. reports that 40 percent of the water distribution system and 60 percent of the country's 122 aqueducts have been damaged. Public shelters and medical facilities are reaching their maximum capacity, while sanitation conditions are deteriorating and relief supplies are quickly running out.

It's true that we can't fly the helicopters and we can't distribute the water. But there are a lot of other ways in which we can help. We here in Congress can make sure that our Government does not stray from these initial commitments and that bureaucratic red tape does not impede the transportation of supplies to the areas hardest hit. We can also appeal to constituents in our own home districts to give to the local charities that are involved in this effort, like the Red Cross or Catholic Charities.

We must not forget that our country's strength lies not just in size of our military, but also in the depth of our compassion. Whatever people can give--from hard cash to canned goods to clothes--will help lift and restore the lives of the victims of this terrible tragedy. Any effort will go a long way to relieving the suffering that continues to be felt by our friends and neighbors.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Norma Anderson Loften, who passed away on November 1, 2007, in her hometown, Beaumont, Texas, at the age of 76.

Ms. Loften was a dear friend who personified all the values that we cherish as Americans: a deep and abiding religious faith, devotion to her family, compassion for those in need, and a commitment to education and hard work.

I first met Norma and her late twin sister Erma when I was a teenager growing up on Lenox Avenue in Harlem, New York City. They had moved there from Texas to attend the St. Aloysius Catholic boarding school for girls. The religious nuns who ran the ``school considered me a ne'er do well, but the twin sisters accepted me and I became a ``lifelong friend of theirs and their family.

Norma studied hard and went on to a long career as a dental hygienist in New York, retiring from Mt. Sinai Hospital in 1995. Her avocation was music, which she studied for many years, to became a talented pianist. With her husband Maurice Loften, she had three accomplished sons, the late Dwight, who had been an accountant in Washington, DC; Rodney, a school superintendent in New Jersey; and Kevin, chairman of the American Hospital Association.

She is also survived by her beloved mother, Cora Anderson, wife of the late Rodney Anderson, who remains in Beaumont, Texas at the wonderful age of 98.

Her loving brother, Charles Anderson, retired from the U.S. Air Force, also resides in Beaumont. His children, the late Vanessa; Francesca; Charles, Jr.; Gina; and Robert were all devoted to their loving aunt, Norma.

God has given the Anderson family an extraordinary faith and unchallenged belief in his wisdom. Therefore I pray that at this painful time when their beloved Norma has been called home, they will take comfort in the belief that this is God's will. I hope that in the midst of their sadness and helplessness, they will be encouraged by the beautiful memories of her great love and caring spirit.

Madam Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in recognizing this wonderful American family and biding farewell to Norma Anderson Loften.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be extremely brief because I expect to be speaking at a later time on the bill. But I could not resist coming to the floor to protect the integrity of the Speaker and the members of the Ways and Means Committee, both Republican and Democrat.

There may be, as a matter of conscience, that people feel that they have to oppose this bill or oppose trade or commitments they have made to other people. But to suggest that the leader of this House and those Republicans and Democrats who worked on the Ways and Means Committee and passed this out with a recorded vote without a vote against it were trying to have Americans lose their jobs here is not only unfounded, but it's unfair.

And if anyone really just wants to count the numbers, then ask our farmers, ask our machine people, ask our television or electronic people how much they are going to export to Peru because of the removal of tariffs and how much is coming into this country.

So you can be against trade. You can be against the agreement. It may not go far enough. It may not be everything you want. But I think it is wrong and unfair to suggest that we are deliberately trying to have people here, hardworking people, many who have suffered because of loss of jobs, and perhaps it has been because of trade or the indifference of people to invest in these families or in these communities, but this bill does not cause Americans to lose jobs. It's abundantly clear that the balance is on America's side in terms of removal of the tariffs. And for those of you who come from agricultural communities, ask your farmers. For those of you who come from machines that remove communities and mining materials, ask those manufacturers. And ask the people that would create the jobs whether or not it's good for them and good for the community.

So you can be against trade. You can be against South America. You can be against anything. But to suggest that those that do support this bill will cause Americans to lose their jobs is untrue and unfair.