Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, back home in Texas I visited with families whose cost is so high that one woman in Bridge City told me she doesn't even go to Wednesday night church. She can't afford to drive to it. Just on Sunday. I talked to small businesses that now work, painters and plumbers and others, who now basically work for free because gas prices have eaten up all their profits. I visited this last week with our law enforcement agencies, who are no longer able to be proactive in the community. They are just responding to calls because they burned through much of their fuel budget for the year already.

In each case, every one of them asked me, Why isn't America doing more? Why isn't America taking more responsibility for our own energy needs? We import two-thirds of all we use. We are capable of doing more. In each case, they said, Look, take a message back to Congress. No more gimmicks. No more gimmicks. We need more American-made energy here in the United States to get our fuel prices down, to be less dependent on Middle East fuel, to have some say over the prices that our families and small businesses pay.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons this Congress has the lowest approval ratings in poll history is it keeps playing political games instead of solving real problems like energy prices or supporting our troops in Iraq.

Today we are doing the same, playing games with our rural schools, with our rural counties, with our rural firefighters and police forces. Unfortunately, this bill is deader than a doornail, only because some political genius decided they would like to pit those of us who support rural schools against our energy companies. Well, guess what? Everyone loses, especially our rural communities who fought for this. This bill is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what's being sold around here today, but there is nothing revolutionary about this bill. There are some good things in it, no question. But it is dangerously incomplete and it is tainted.

It includes a last-minute special interest provision that no one in America has ever had a chance to look at or consider. It is not revolutionary because it includes extensions of what's already law in America today, the research and development tax credit, that's so important to innovation America. The State and local sales tax deduction, important for families to deduct what they pay in sales taxes from what they owe Uncle Sam because sales taxes really add up fast, especially for younger families. Energy provisions, which are important for us to do renewable alternative fuels. All that is very good. Everyone supports it.

This bill is dangerously incomplete because it does not address a huge looming tax increase on most of middle class America. The alternative minimum tax, the second tax, that families find when they do their taxes or do their software for taxes, and they're okay, they don't owe Uncle Sam anything. We catch them with a second tax. And we said over the years that we'll do away with that. Republicans did do away with that second tax. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed it, and we live with it today.

This bill does nothing to stop the alternative minimum tax, the second tax, on American families, and we need to act now, not later to do that.

It is tainted because it includes a provision, $1.6 billion, a new tax break, for one special interest group, plaintiffs' attorneys with contingency fees. The wealthiest 1 percent of attorneys in America will receive $1.5 billion more of your money.

Mr. Speaker, the wealthiest 1 percent of attorneys in America will receive a tax break courtesy of you, the taxpayers. Yet we won't do more to help the refundable child tax credit. Those are single parents who are usually raising one or two kids and working several jobs. We offered the amendment. Instead of helping a trial lawyer buy a second private jet, why don't we help a waitress who's trying to raise her kids? Wouldn't that be a fair use of help and dollars?

So I oppose this bill. I believe we ought to do these extensions, and I believe this bill does not deserve support.

I appreciate Mr. McCrery's leadership on veterans issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill on the floor today that will provide additional tax relief to our Nation's veterans, especially those who are seeking to purchase homes. This bill ensures that our veterans who serve their Nation after 1977, including those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, can qualify for low-interest home loans financed by Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds. In Texas, this is important. This bill will enable the Texas Veterans Land Board, led by Commissioner Jerry Patterson, to expand its existing low-interest loan program to serve thousands of more Texas veterans.

For all the sacrifice our veterans have made to defend our country, it's only right that we help them own a home upon returning home.

Thank you, Mr. Reynolds, for your leadership on our economic issues here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, a principle that is before us today is that Congress should not be bailing out speculators, lenders, or investors who have behaved irresponsibly.

If you bought a home that is too big for you, that you couldn't afford from the get-go, or you were betting that property values would go up in your region, that's tough.

If you lent money without income or means of those who were borrowing it, or you preyed, you preyed on people who didn't know better and then churned their loan repeatedly, that's tough. If you purchased securities without determining if the loans underlying them were sound, that is your problem. That is not the taxpayers', that is not your next-door neighbor's problem.

We do have a role in Congress and it is this, to address this issue: One, we should make sure that there is available, affordable credit for creditworthy borrowers. We need to make sure that we prevent this from occurring again. And we need to punish, aggressively punish, the bad actors who have infected our entire American economy.

The proposal we have before us today is well intentioned, clearly. I think Republicans and Democrats agree on the need to help where we can. It is well intentioned. It is not particularly effective. I have my doubts that it will help much at all. It is too little, too slow, too unfocused. It is, as you would imagine, a typical Washington reaction.

For example, a provision to allow States to have more authority for low income housing. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, we need more of that. That housing likely, knowing the process that works here, in the State of Texas and others, it will probably be 3 years before anyone moves into housing of that caliber. Way too late for this problem.

The property tax deduction for seniors who don't itemize, you always want to help people with their property taxes. But is a retired person really going to take $350 and buy a new home or buy a foreclosed home in their neighborhood? Not likely.

Even the tax credit for first-time homebuyers, a part that, I think, the philosophy of which I really like. But this no-interest loan is structured so low, $7,500, it won't allow them to buy a home. There are not many $75,000 homes on the market. If it's only a 5 percent down payment, there are, truthfully, not very many $150,000 homes that are in the areas of America that actually have massive foreclosures. Those tend to be either in the depressed areas or in the high-value States where a lot of people did bet on rising property values.

So I like the philosophy of it. I don't think it will help much. Thankfully it won't hurt. It won't hurt. There are good things in this bill. The FHA modernization and the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac I think are exactly appropriate.

But if our goal is to make sure we have available credit for creditworthy borrowers, I think this bill is a poor alternative to the Hope Alliance, which is moving faster and more effectively today and covering more than 90 percent of those who have mortgages and could have problems, or has already worked with 1.4 million families who need help moving them into new loans or moderating the loan they have today. And they are doing that without taxpayers underwriting any potential loss. That is, I think, the approach that works best and is already proven to work.

I will finish with this. I have said that there is nothing patently offensive in the amendment from Ways and Means. In fact, again, I think it is well intentioned. But in the underlying bill by Chairman Frank, there is something that is especially offensive.

I come from Texas. Our region was destroyed in Hurricane Rita, a hurricane that was stronger than Hurricane Katrina. We lost 70,000 homes that were damaged or destroyed. We lost more than $1 billion of our timber industry, our main crop. We still have 10 percent of our families who haven't moved back to southeast Texas because they don't have housing. Yet in Chairman Frank's underlying bill, he creates an affordable housing fund and dedicates $500 million to Louisiana and Mississippi to help rebuild housing in those areas. And yet for the same hurricane, and Hurricane Rita, in the communities that actually took in the Katrina families as they fled that hurricane, and then those same families have their own roofs torn off in southeast Texas, this bill says, ``Drop dead. Forget it. We are going to help those who are on this side of the hurricane.''

But to those who not only took in those of Katrina, to those communities that opened their hearts, their churches and their homes and have their own community destroyed, this government and this Congress is saying, ``Forget it. We are going to divide this hurricane along State lines. You can drop dead. No help for you in housing. No help for you in apartments. No help for you, period. None. Zero for the victims of Hurricane Rita in Texas.''

This Congress ought to be ashamed of itself.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue. You come from a State, Illinois, that has a diverse blend of energy sources, and you've got a leadership role on the Energy and Commerce Committee. You know this issue. And you're right, ``no'' is not an energy policy.

I think this new Democrat Congress is completely disconnected from the real world. I say that because recently I held some roundtables at Mama Jack's Restaurant in Kountze, Texas, which, by the way, has great food and a great small business owner who's living the American Dream. And then I went to a new Chevron station earlier this week in Shenandoah, Texas, across from the Woodlands, where our family lives, and just talked to motorists about this issue.

What I found at Mama Jack's Restaurant were two small business people who basically say they work for free now. One was a florist. Another one, I forget what small business he was in. They basically said the price of fuel has eaten up all their profits for the week.

I talked to the sheriff of Hardin County, who said, basically, they run through their annual budget in law enforcement about halfway through the year. Now their officers aren't able to make some of the discretionary, positive, proactive calls they'd like to make. They don't have the money to do it.

At the gas station, I talked to a painter who lives in Montgomery County, works all throughout the Houston area, who said, basically, that he used to make $500 a week, what his net was. Now his fuel eats up $250 of that.

I ran into a teacher, a guitar teacher, a young man who had a very fuel-efficient car. He actually sold his land in Willis and moved closer to where he works just because, as he said, ``We just can't take these fuel prices.''

Yet look at Congress. Look at this new Democrat Congress. Since they've been in office, not only has the price of energy just skyrocketed, but look at

what it's done. The first thing it did to address energy prices, it passed a bill through the House to allow individuals to sue OPEC. To sue OPEC. What is that going to accomplish?

Then the second thing is this Congress began promoting longer-lasting light bulbs. Those are fine, but I don't think it's going to help lower the price at the pump anywhere.

Then they decided, no, here's the problem: We're apparently producing too much energy here in America. So they went after the U.S. energy companies. And what happened was 3 years ago, a Republican Congress, concerned about the loss of jobs overseas, changed the Tax Code. We basically said, look, if you produce and invest in America, create jobs in America, manufacture in America, you will have a lower tax rate than if you do that overseas. It makes great sense. Well, this new Democrat Congress said, no, there's one industry that we won't stand for. So they singled out the U.S. energy industry and said, no, we're going to tax you like you're producing, investing, and creating jobs in foreign countries; so we're going to treat you and your workers like you're a foreign investor. So at a time when we need more U.S. energy, we basically told our American energy companies, we're going to punish you for exploring here and producing and manufacturing in America, and, by the way, we're going to outsource good American energy jobs to other countries. We'll just make it more attractive for them.

And then this Congress apparently squeezed in between hearings on steroids in baseball and appearances by Julia Roberts, and we managed somehow to pass a measure to insist on more fuel-efficient cars. That's good. That actually is a good thing. But then this Congress went right back to punishing U.S. energy producers. The latest scheme out there is that we won't sell any military planes made in America, by the way, by American workers unless OPEC agrees to sell us more oil. So, in other words, our message to OPEC was: We want to do less, but we insist that you do more. It makes no sense at all.

I agree with you, Mr. Shimkus. We need a balanced approach to our energy. We need to take more responsibility as America for our own energy needs. We need to conserve more. Every one of us can do more to stretch our energy. We do need new technology because everything we touch can be made more energy efficient. And, yes, renewables are important. In fact, the Republican Congress is the one who put in place many incentives on wind and solar and biomass and biofuels types of issues.

But what your point is that I agree with, and, I think, the American public agrees with, is we do have to increase supply. We are, I think, a country of Americans that want more American energy. And the way we do that is to unlock our resources.

I'm from Texas. I have watched this Government push our energy companies deeper and deeper into the gulf coast, into riskier and more expensive waters, and then we wonder why the price of oil is higher. We've locked off most of our reserves along the gulf coast. We've locked off our Arctic energy, which is a tremendous, vast resource. We refuse to help work on the U.S. Naval Shale Reserve, which is another resource. Mr. Shimkus, for many years I have heard you talk about the need to take coal and turn it into super clean liquid fuels that can help again fuel our country as we go forward.

The good news is America has remarkable resources if we will just take more responsibility for what we need because our economy is like a growing young boy. We continue to grow. But other countries do as well.

I will finish with this: I've watched Congress blame everyone in the world for high oil prices except themselves. I think Congress ought to look in the mirror when it comes to high energy prices at the pump, and here is why: The high world oil prices reflect the new reality of this Democrat Congress. And what we have said is stable governments like America are no longer going to take responsibility for energy; so we are actually pushing more of the world's reserves into unstable countries, just as you said: Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, and others. As a result, we pay a premium price because the rest of the world now knows that America, a stable government, has said no, we are not going to be part of the solution, we want other countries to. And, unfortunately, our motorists, our small businesses, our law enforcement are paying the price. America needs to take more responsibility for our energy.

I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's leadership and keeping the focus of Congress on the Constitution, what roles we play of a limited government.

I don't know if you can remember what you were doing last Wednesday, but I do. Last Wednesday is what we call Tax Freedom Day. It's the first day of the year that you and I start working for ourselves and our families. From New Year's Day up to last Wednesday, April 23, we were working just to pay taxes to our State, local and Federal Government.

If you think about what an overtaxed Nation we are, think about your day. You wake up in the morning, grab a shower, you pay the water tax. You stop and grab a cup of coffee, you pay a sales tax. And take your car down to work, you pay gas taxes. At work you pay two taxes, an income tax and a payroll tax. You come home at the end of the day, you open the door, turn on the light, pay electricity tax, turn on the television, pay a cable tax, use your phone and pay a telephone tax, kiss your spouse good night and pay a marriage penalty tax.

And on and on and on. Every day the rest of your life. And then when you die, you pay a death tax. No wonder it is so hard for families to make ends meet in America these days especially with the prices being what they are.

And the only thing worse than how much we spend on taxes, especially those we send to Washington and Uncle Sam, is how poorly Washington spends our hard-earned dollars. I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that we make horrible use of the dollars our taxpayers give us. And I'm convinced that if Congress in Washington were a manufacturing plant, we would manufacture spending. That's what we were designed to do. If we want our government to manufacture savings and efficiency, we need to retool the plant. We need to change the way Washington works.

I have a proposal that does that. This is a bill that I introduced as a freshman bipartisan Member with my good friend, Congressman Jim Turner from Texas. Well, we came in together as freshmen. It is the Federal Sunset Act. And what it does is its goal is to abolish obsolete agencies and eliminate duplications within programs because we know we don't spend money wisely. What the commission does is, bipartisan, made up equally of Republicans and Democrats, mostly legislators, but it also includes four members appointed from the public, and basically what it does is it places an expiration date on every Federal agency and program where they have to justify their existence or face elimination.

They have to justify their existence not on what they were for created 80 years ago or 60 or 40 years ago, but they answer the question, Do they deserve our precious tax dollars to date? Ronald Reagan once said, The closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program, and he is right.

The other thing, of course, is once created, Federal programs duplicate themselves. They clone themselves, it seems like. For example, we have more than 300 separate different economic development programs. We have more than 100 separate, different, or separate job- development programs. We have 64 different welfare programs. There are so many urban aid, inner-city programs, different ones, that we could get in a car once a week and visit one in a week, and it would take us nearly 9 years just to see those programs in that one year. We waste and duplicate too much of America's hard-earned money.

The Sunset Commission has worked now in over 24 States, so it's a proven method of cutting wasteful spending. In my home State of Texas over the years, it has abolished 54 State agencies, consolidated 12 more, and saved our taxpayers nearly $1 billion. That's

in one State. I'm convinced it can do even more in Washington.

Our government, unfortunately, for all of the good things it does, is too big and too fast. It needs to go on a diet. And the Federal Sunset Commission isn't a crash diet. It's a take-off-pounds-sensibly diet where each party, who seems to talk about wanting to balance a budget, who always wants to talk about cutting wasteful spending but won't act to do it, it gives both parties the responsibility and the ability to work together to streamline this big, bloated Federal Government so that a Tax Freedom Day, whether it is April 23 this year or if President Bush's tax cuts are to expire, which they shouldn't, we would actually work until May, the fifth month of the year, until we start working for ourselves.

It is important that if we want to have lower taxes, more freedom and use taxpayers' money wisely, we need to enact a Federal Sunset Commission and enact it today. And I think that is the constitutional role of this Congress is while we may collect the taxes, we have even greater responsibility to limit its use as a government and to make sure they're used as wisely and efficiently as possible.

And with that, again, the gentleman from Michigan has led the effort here among Republicans and among the Republican Study Committee to better define our Constitution and Congress' real role. I think these days, that's even more important we do that.

For 30 years, picking up on what you just said, the public doesn't have to take my word for how inefficient we are, even your words, Mr. Garrett, about how inefficient it is.

Recently, the Office of Management and Budget assessed over a thousand Federal agencies. They determined that nearly one-quarter are simply not performing. These agencies account for nearly $123 billion annually in increased spending, in duplicative spending, in spending that no longer works or helps anyone. And I keep thinking, what would our families do with $123 billion of their own money that they're sending us and we're wasting? What could they do for the families? What dreams could they reach? What decisions would they make and not rely on government to do that?

I just think that all of this is about giving more faith in people than it is in government, and I think that's what our Founding Fathers intended this great Republic to be.

Well, if I may just follow up. You made, sir, I think a key component of why we need this. Right now in Washington today, if you try to abolish an agency that has outlived its usefulness or you question programs that duplicate themselves, there is always someone who jumps up and says, well, you know, I remember they've done some good things in the past. Almost impossible to do it. The Federal Sunset Commission changes that around and it basically says to the agency, you must justify your existence to taxpayers, not just to law makers, but to taxpayers themselves. You have to prove your value and worth and success.

When I served in the Texas legislature, what I saw was in the 2 years before an agency was sunset, it was amazing how responsive they became, how quickly they returned your phone calls, how responsive they were on their letters. Now they were under the mistaken belief that their customers were actually the legislature. Their customers are the taxpayers. I want to reintroduce customer service back into our government, and I want agencies to know that if they drift far away from their original mission, if they do not perform and produce, if they don't recognize that they work for the public, the public doesn't work for them, they work for the public, if they forget that, they need to understand that on a regular basis they will be held accountable for it. And I think that's a part of our government today. Unfortunately, that is missing.

One thing, too, I've noticed, my experience in sunsetting at State level, the gentleman from Utah mentioned it, is that programs that succeed, that do their job, spend their money wisely, perform and are responsive to the taxpayers, they do beautifully in the sunset. They have no problem at all. It is the programs that don't do any of those that struggle. And my belief is that we should fund constitutional programs that deliver quality services to our taxpayers, and not a dime for those who don't, not a dime for those who don't. And what's interesting, we've had one vote on the House floor in 12 years on this. Congressman Turner and I offered an amendment to a bill, and it passed with 272 votes, 2-1 margin. Now, the bill it was attached to eventually died, those things happen here in Washington, DC, but it showed us that there is support.

We put this issue of a Federal sunset bill on a national poll some years ago, we wanted to know how America felt about it. Seventy-seven percent of Americans across every region believed we need a Federal sunset act and we should hold agencies accountable to the taxpayers. And I believe that done wisely and done well, this could be an effective tool for shrinking the size of our government, using our tax dollars more wisely. And in a time of war, in a time of deficits, I think it's even more important for both parties to pull together, find new tools they can both use day in and day out to try to squeeze the absolute best out of every tax dollar that is sent to us.

And with that, I would yield either to the gentleman from Utah or the leader of this special hour, the gentleman from New Jersey.

Well, again, I would praise the gentleman from New Jersey for being a leader and the gentleman from Utah on trying to reinvent government, take it back to the features, take it back to its roots and make it work for us.

I was intrigued by the gentleman from New Jersey's comments about our Founding Fathers because I was reading one of the many books about Thomas Jefferson. And he sent a letter back to a colleague, as the third President of the United States, where he expressed frustration that he was already struggling to try to close down Federal programs that had already outlived their usefulness. This was our third President, and he was already fighting to do that. It tells you what a challenge we have.

But I am convinced that if both parties really mean it, that we can accomplish this. I think if we spent less time in Washington holding hearings on steroids and baseball, you know, if we spent less time promoting longer lasting light bulbs, and those are good, of course, but the priorities of this country, I think this Congress especially is disconnected from the real world, from what real families face. And when people are paying so much out of their paycheck and paying so much at the pump, it just isn't a responsibility to use their money wisely, it's an obligation. It's in the Constitution. It's in principle. It's really a case in morality. But we're taking people's money and wasting it.

I hope people who are watching tonight will call their Member of Congress and ask why aren't they in support of the Sunset Commission, why don't they get on the Sunset Commission and use their thoughts and ideas to trim this budget? Because I'm telling you, we have Members of Congress, both parties, who I think can do an excellent job, but we have to have the will and the backbone to do it first. And I again applaud the gentleman from New Jersey for being a leader on constitutional issues here in Washington.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the city of Livingston and the Livingston Independent School District, as they celebrate the 100-year anniversary of Livingston High School. Since graduating its first class of three students in 1908, Livingston High School has been a place devoted to the single purpose of educating young people.

Since the city was established in the 1840s, education of youths has been of great public importance. In fact, the earliest recorded free school system in Livingston was established in 1849 and funded by the Trinity Masonic Lodge No. 14. Classes were held on the first floor of

the Lodge building until the late 1880s. A school term during that time only lasted 3 months so as to enable the students to assist their families with farming activities.

The first structure solely devoted to public education was built in 1888 and was located on Jackson Avenue. The high school, which at that time allowed students to attend grades 9 and 10, was not initiated until 1906. Even though the size of that first graduating class was small in number, their accomplishments were far and reaching. The first female to graduate, Mrs. Myra Lewis (Green), became a schoolteacher and taught in Livingston and Raymondville. Mr. Brown L. Meece went on to attend Texas A&M University and later became Vice-President for both Global and Sinclair Oil Companies. After graduating from Livingston High School, Mr. Ralph Feagin attended the University of Texas and later served as Executive Vice President of Electric Bond and Share Company in New York City and later in his life he became a partner at the law firm of Baker, Botts, Andrew, and Wharton.

Today, Livingston High School is home to approximately 1200 students that attend the ninth through the twelfth grade. Students at the school have the ability to enrich themselves academically, culturally, and athletically by participating in many different clubs and extracurricular activities.

Livingston High School has worked hard to prepare its students for the rigors of a college education. Additionally, Livingston High School serves as an off-campus center for Angelina College which enables the students to earn college credits while still in high school.

Looking back at the 100-year history of Livingston High School there is much to be proud of. Graduates of Livingston High School have excelled in all areas of life and made many positive contributions to our country. We can rejoice, however, because with great teachers and administrators there are many more positive years ahead for Livingston High School.

Madam Speaker, our Nation's high schools are places that prepare the youth of our great country to led prosperous lives, and it is an honor to represent a high school that has such a distinguished record on doing just that in the U.S. House of Representatives. I urge you to join the in congratulating Livingston High School on 100 years of excellence in educating the youth of Polk County.

Madam Speaker, I rise today very proud to honor and congratulate the Lone Star College System University Center in The Woodlands, Texas, on its 10th anniversary.

The University Center broke ground in June of 1996 under the theme of ``common ground for the common good.'' Partner universities, which include: Prairie View A&M University, Sam Houston State University, Texas A&M University, Texas Southern University, University of Houston and University of Houston-Downtown, began offering courses in September of 1997, and facilities were opened in January of the next year. Since that time, the University Center has indeed honored the vision of providing multi-level quality higher education instruction to a diverse population of citizens from north Houston, north Harris and Montgomery counties.

Over the past decade, the Center has experienced phenomenal growth. Student enrollment and the number of courses offered has grown four- fold. In 1997, the Center served 374 students in 65 classes. Today, over 2,300 students participate in 255 classes. Fifty-two thousand students have been served in ten years with no signs that growth will stop.

This unique partnership between the six Texas universities and the five colleges of the Lone Star College System has created amazing educational opportunities for the students of the region. Through this partnership, students at the University Center can complete baccalaureate degrees, master's degrees and continuing professional studies in over 65 programs without having to drive long distances. Having such programs right in their own backyard is an opportunity that the enrollment numbers clearly tell us is just too good to pass up.

The University Center is not only an asset to our community now, but the sky is the limit for its future impact. By offering convenient access to top quality instructors and innovative teaching, the opportunity for students to achieve their higher education goals in my district has never been so strong.

I consistently hear from employers that University Center students take their outstanding educations and make a mark in the workplace. Many careers have been started or enhanced through this unique educational resource. As the University Center moves beyond its first decade, the best is truly yet to come.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to represent the University Center in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I urge you to join me in congratulating the Lone Star College System--University Center on this momentous occasion.

Thank you, Mr. Dreier. And thank you for your leadership. I'm glad to join all the Members here tonight on this important issue.

The reason this country is so dismayed by the action last week is that it was such a huge loss for American jobs, for security in our hemisphere, and a big loss for America's prestige around the world.

Colombia's a remarkable trading partner, as you have noted. They are a remarkable study and model in progress, in democracy, and human rights, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps by rule of law and freedom of speech and freedom of trade, all the American traits that you have to admire. They're in our backyard. They're in our hemisphere. A remarkable trading partner.

I think last week many in America wondered just what happened to this great country. Who could imagine that America, with the world's largest economy, would cower from Colombia behind walls of protectionism? Who could imagine the world's strongest democracy would be afraid to even debate, even consider this agreement? And who could imagine, by changing the rules after we had already shaken hands and signed an agreement, that we would send a signal to the rest of the world that we are no longer not even a reliable trade leader in this world but we are not even reliable negotiators, that our word, our bond, our agreements mean nothing?

And the loss in jobs, as you know, America is wide open, Mr. Dreier. As you know, we can buy anything from almost any country anywhere we want in our communities.

But when we try to sell our goods and services around the world, we find too much of it blocked. As we have said before, it's not enough anymore to just buy American. We have to sell American. We have to sell our goods and services throughout the world. But when we do, we find so much of the world is closed off, locked away from us.

Colombia, a great partner, has been selling their goods and services into America since 1991, but we face real barriers when we try to do the same, and this trade agreement creates that two-way trade.

For Texas I know it's critical. We're the largest seller of goods to Colombia. We sell about a little over a billion dollars a year in chemicals, construction, equipment and machinery and computers. And under this agreement we would sell another billion dollars of not only that but grapefruit and beef and financial services. A number of services our small businesses could sell into Colombia, our neighbor in the backyard and in our hemisphere. So we lost jobs here in America.

Colombia lost jobs because they lost a guaranteed market because by not acting, by changing the rules, they are now coming at a disadvantage to their neighbors, in Peru and Central American countries. So they actually lost ground from a jobs perspective.

And, finally, to turn our back on what a tremendous ally, as you have noted over and over, who has made such great progress, who we deserve to engage more and be a stronger partner with, not to turn our back on, it's a huge loss.

Very briefly, Judge Carter was with me and others here 2 weeks ago as we met with the general prosecutor, an independent prosecutor, for the country of Colombia.

Yes. And he told us straight out, because we asked him, he said there is no thread, no direct or indirect thread at all, between the Colombian Government and any murders of anyone, much less union leaders. And he said what you've said, that this government has not only sat down to prosecute those who would commit violent crimes against union leaders but provides protection. In fact, it is safer to be a union leader in Colombia than just the general population might be. That is such an effort they have made. That government is providing a lower level of violence, a safer country for all citizens.

So the argument that they are targeting or that they are allowing it or just looking the other way is exactly

wrong, and the unions themselves told us that.

Absolutely. There have been a number of Democrat colleagues who have traveled to Colombia to see that remarkable progress firsthand, who have assessed it themselves rather than playing the politics of it, and who have been both public and private in their support for this agreement. I think all they would like is an up-or- down vote, a fair chance to debate this issue and bring it to the floor. I am confident with it would pass. And I am confident we would send a completely different signal to our allies like Colombia and the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, America's status in the world has never been smaller than this day. Who could imagine the world's largest economy cowering from Colombia behind the calls of protectionism? Who could imagine the world's greatest democracy too frightened to even debate, even consider this agreement. Who could imagine that this Congress would send a signal to the world that we are not just an unreliable leader in trade, we are an unreliable negotiator in trade? It is embarrassing and it is dangerous. And it will cost America jobs.

Today, Colombia can sell their products into America with no tariffs, no restrictions. But when we try to sell our products, we find barriers and costs. My workers in Texas want to know why can they buy products in Colombia at the local mall but we can't sell our products around the world? Colombia is a strong trading partner. They have reduced violence. They have embraced the rule of law. They are a strong ally. They deserve an up-or-down vote this year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 3368, a bill originally introduced by Representative Lantos of California, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Madam Speaker, what is this Congress thinking? Why would we turn our back on Colombia, and then turn our back on America's own farmers and manufacturers and small businesses?

Colombia is one of our strongest allies in our neighborhood, in our neighborhood, fighting terrorism, reducing kidnappings, turning down violence in a very tough neighborhood. They need and want the support of the United States of America, and we are rejecting that support. Yet, today, Colombia is able to sell its products and goods into America. When we try to do the same for our farmers or our manufacturers or our small businesses, we are not allowed to.

The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement changes that. It makes sure we send the signal to the world that we stand with our allies who stand for democracy and rule of law. We are also saying we want two-way trade. We want the ability to sell our products overseas.

This Congress needs to not turn its back on Colombia, and give us an up-or-down vote on that trade agreement this year.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Joint Economic Committee on behalf of our senior ranking Republican, the Honorable Jim Saxton, I rise today to oppose the Democrats' irresponsible budget resolution that will only pave the way for major tax increases and hurt the economy.

You may recall that 15 months ago, Democrats took over the control of the House and the Senate vowing a new direction for America, and in truth, we've experienced that. Since Democrats took control of both Chambers, food prices are up, college tuition is up, health care costs are up, fuel prices are way up, unemployment is up, the deficit is up.

They vowed that they would do three things: They would pay every dime of this war, not mortgage the future. How much have they paid? Zero. They vowed they would not raise the debt limit. In fact, they called it immoral when we did it. So they did it very quietly without a vote in the first 60 days they were in control. And they vowed that they would pay as you go, that they would not allow any tax increases or relief to go forward without paying for them, and, of course, they failed at that as well.

And now we are at a time when the economy is on the brink of a severe downturn. The last thing we should be doing is telling Americans to expect to pay billions more in taxes in just 2 short years; $683 billion worth, the largest single tax increase in American history. That averages out to almost $3,000 per family every year. And I know $3,000 doesn't sound like a lot in Washington, DC, where we squander billions, but for families back in Texas, and I think most middle class families, that is far too much to bear, especially with prices being what they are.

I guess the question we always have, those of us who believe we ought to have lower taxes and less spending, is why does the Democrat budget insist that families tighten their belt but they don't do anything to tighten the belt up here in Washington?

Our public wants us to spend more wisely, not more. And they believe tax is too high. This budget is just the opposite.

I don't know of any economist that thinks tax increases are good for an economy in an economic slowdown, and the timing now is particularly bad. Our economy has suffered some serious shocks: Skyrocketing oil prices, the housing meltdown and mortgage crisis. We certainly don't need another one from here in the Halls of Congress.

And I have to tell you, too, I enjoy hearing about all the class warfare issues. So, we just asked an independent source, the Congressional Budget Office, are the rich getting richer under President Bush? They say the facts are just the opposite. Quoting from them, the period between 2000 and 2005 has not been a time of surging income inequality. Instead, the income gains of the top wealthy 1 percent actually slowed during this period. In contrast, between 1992 and 2000, President Clinton's years, the average income of the top 1 percent skyrocketed by 84 percent. So the king of inequality is President Clinton. They just want to try to hang it on President Bush.

And if you look at the charts, again by the independent Congressional Budget Office, it shows that for middle-class America, aftertax household income actually increased, the highest level since they've been recording these values.

And if you take a look at the total effective tax rate, what we've seen as well is that the tax rates and the cost for middle-class Americans has gone down to a historic rate as well. So, they are earning a record amount of income. They are paying a record fewer amount of taxes. And so middle-class families in America are trying to battle these high prices that this new Democratic Congress is bringing us by trying to keep just a little more of what they earn.

A major tax increase now, when Americans are planning for the future, will only add fuel to the fire and threaten to throw us deep into a recession. You only have to take out a history book to remember the tax increases imposed during the 1930s worked to worsen economic conditions during that time. And the economic growth in the 1990s came about because of spending restraint, and then what turned out to be an artificial economy. But Democrats, as I've said, would like the American public to believe that these tax hikes will only affect the wealthy. Let me tell you, it's going to affect middle-class America. They are dead wrong.

These tax increases the Democrats propose, the largest tax increase in American history, will affect real working families. Any individual that gets married, that has children, that receives maybe a nest egg from their small business or the family farm, maybe makes a good investment, saves for retirement, all of them, all of you will pay more in taxes. Is this what the American people want or deserve? And the answer is no.

Today, while we have Democrats say they are shooting at the wealthy 1 percent, what they are really hitting is middle class America because, as I said before, the rate of taxes paid for by the wealthy 1 percent is actually growing. What we need to do is keep taxes low for middle- class America. Those tax hikes will hurt workers and small businesses, the very people we need investing and growing, by taxing them an average of 12 percent more than we do now. That's 12 percent less money that they can keep to grow their business or invest in their company or maybe create another new job here in America. And unfortunately, raising those taxes is a big incentive for companies to move investments overseas instead of here at home. It's bad enough this Congress has tried to outsource U.S. energy jobs, now we're trying to outsource the rest of America's jobs as well.

And this Democrat budget, I can tell you, does not provide funding to keep the State and local sales tax deduction in place. They don't have any money for the research and development tax credit. They don't even have any money for the college tuition tax credit. What they say is, we endorse this tax relief. We endorse it. That's like having your son come to you and ask for allowance and you tell him, I don't have any money, but I endorse your idea of an allowance.

The Republican budget actually budgets for that tax relief to make sure that families aren't punished, middle-class families aren't hurt by $3,000 more every year of new taxes. And what we say is Washington ought to tighten its belt before we ask American families to tighten theirs.

And I'll tell you, too, not only does the Democrat budget raise the deficit, but this budget fails greatly and does not address serious entitlement reform, which is critically needed if we are to sustain Medicare and Social Security for future generations.

It ignores the inevitable and punts the problem down the road. Instead of making the tough choices today, which is what the American public wants, their budget is long on words, but short on action. They call on experts to develop ``options'' and saying that action is ``needed.'' More words, no action, and the problem gets bigger.

In just 7 short years, entitlement spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will consume nearly two-thirds of our entire Federal budget, and then it gets worse. These programs will grow to such a size that they will be equal to the cost of the entire Federal Government today, and Americans will have to pay twice the taxes just to keep it in place.

Our economic growth is at risk in this Democrat budget. It makes it more unfair for middle class America; it ignores Social Security and Medicare, which we need to make solvent and preserve once and for all; it raises the deficit; and it basically turns a blind eye to American families who are struggling to make ends meet with rising costs the way they are.

And they all say, well, we endorse the tax relief you have today. Well, Republicans don't endorse it, we embrace it. We include it. We pay for it. And we do balance the budget. And you know what we do? We make a huge sacrifice. We ask Washington to just slow spending by 3 percent. That's all we do. We're not asking to cut major programs. We're not asking for major sacrifices. We're saying, before you force our families to pay $3,000 more a year, why don't you just tighten your belt just a little, just 3 percent over the next 5 years. That's all we do to balance this budget. That's the smart way to balance the budget. That's the fair way, especially for middle class families. And for our economy, it's the smart way to revive jobs, to create a strong economy, and keep jobs growing in America.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), one of our leaders in this conference and one of our most distinguished leaders.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.

I would make the point that this new Democrat leadership promised to pay for this war. They vowed riding into office that's what they would do. They had three opportunities last year and this year to fund that war. The budget of last year, the emergency spending, and the budget again for this year. Guess how much is paid for? Zero. Zero money.

It's one thing to make promises to be fiscally responsible. It's another thing not to be fiscally responsible.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would yield 5 minutes to one of our conservative leaders in Congress, a woman who has fought very hard for middle class families in Tennessee and this country, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

At this time, I would reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady.

I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

I don't know where those fairy tales come from, I don't mean from the gentlelady, but some of these special interest groups. But I'm looking at the budget, page 37, I look at this title III called ``reserve funds.'' It doesn't have any money in it, but it is called ``reserve funds.'' It is empty. It says they have all these reserve funds for tax relief, middle-income tax relief, alternative minimum tax relief, higher education, and sales tax deduction.

Here is the problem: I then turn to the page where the line item is for these reserve funds, and it is zero. It is zero in the budget. All these tax cuts that are so important for families and small businesses will go away. In fact, if you ask the question, will those taxes increase in order to balance the Democrat budget? The answer is absolutely yes. Absolutely yes.

And the reason you know this is that every independent organization from government who has examined this budget knows and states, we will see the largest tax increase in American history.

Let us get down to this point, though. We do have common ground, the Republicans and the Democrats, on balancing the budget. There is no question about it. We believe it needs to be done. Here is the difference between the two parties. Republicans believe that we should not raise taxes on families and small businesses, that we should have spending restraint, just a small amount, 3 percent, Washington tighten its budget belt before families do, we tackle Social Security and Medicare in a meaningful way to preserve it, and we enact a 1-year moratorium on frivolous earmarks so we can stop using those hippie museums and the bridges to nowhere and those just embarrassments of spending, that we can go back and come up with a commonsense way of do it in moderation.

The Democrat budget has a different approach. You may like it. They raise taxes about $3,000 on every family every year in America. They have higher spending, the largest spending budgets in American history. There is no action to preserve Social Security or Medicare, and earmarks continue unabated. And we have already seen the results of this in the past year. When Republicans held control of Congress, we spent too much. We spent too much, and the deficit got as high as $412 billion in 2004. It was wrong. Every year we have whittled it down, until the last Republican budget was $162 billion deficit. That is better than half, but that is not good enough. And in the 1-year budget Democrats have had, they have more than doubled, $357 billion deficit projection according to the Congressional Budget Office, and this year's deficit may be larger than that. The compass is going in the wrong direction. America doesn't need to have their taxes raised. Washington needs to tighten its belt, especially before we ask our families to tighten their belt. We need to tackle Social Security and Medicare. We need to call a time-out on these frivolous earmarks. And we need some spending restraint that the American people believe that we can do.

This is a bad budget for the values and the future of America. It harms our families and small businesses and resorts to budget gimmicks. It will never be a balanced budget. The Republican alternative is a sensible one that will do that the right way. The right choice is the Republican budget.

With that, I yield back my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Nelda C. and H.J. Lutcher Stark Foundation on the reopening of Shangri La in Orange, TX.

In the 1930s, Lutcher Stark named his private gardens along Adams Bayou after the mythical mountain utopia in James Hilton's bestselling book, Lost Horizon. Hundreds of azalea bushes were planted along with other flowers and the gardens were sometimes open to the public and to birdwatchers. Shangri La drew thousands of visitors during those times.

Shangri La was closed in 1958 because of a devastating snowstorm that destroyed thousands of azaleas and the gardens remained closed for 40 years. In the book and later in a movie, a bell rings when a visitor enters Shangri La. The bell will once again ring on March 12, 2008 to announce that the 252 acre botanical garden and nature center is again open to the public.

Shangri La is a remarkable achievement and I predict that it will be a magnificent eco-tourism attraction. It is divided into two sections-- the designed botanical gardens that will have changing flowers with the seasons, and the nature center left in a natural state. Education is one of the main goals with various areas for learning for ages from pre-kindergarten to graduate university degrees.

Shangri La is the first complex in Texas, and only the 50th in the world, to be awarded the rare ``platinum'' rating by the U.S. Green Building Council. The rating recognizes the most ecologically ``green'' complexes in the world and is known as ``LEED,'' for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. The president of the Council has said ``Shangri La will be a showcase for high-performance, energy-efficient, healthy design, and an inspiration for others.''

Buildings have been constructed using recycled materials, when available, and have been designed to be energy efficient. Thirty-six solar photovoltaic panels create electricity for the complex and its boats and carts. Boardwalks in the swamp are made of ``boards'' of recycled plastic and wood. A closed loop, geothermal heating and cooling system pumps water from an 800-foot-deep-well, allowing Shangri La to take advantage of the consistent temperatures deep within the earth. The roofing is designed to reflect heat and collect rainwater in large cisterns.

In 2005, Hurricane Rita devastated Shangri La at the beginning of its construction phase. Viewing the situation as an opportunity, the many fallen trees were incorporated into the construction of Shangri La facilities.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to represent Orange, TX in the U.S. House of Representatives and I urge you to join me in congratulating Shangri La on its grand opening and their commitment to the environment and the community.