Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, U.S. relations with Latin America stand at a critical juncture.

Just last weekend after a successful attack by Colombian troops against the terrorist FARC, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez expressed his outrage and ordered his troops to the Colombian border. He convinced Ecuador to do the same. There is evidence that Chavez has colluded with these terrorists and seeks to destroy the democratic government of Colombia.

The U.S. must support our ally at this critical time. And Congress has a unique opportunity to do just that by passing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Colombia is our ally. They are committed to democracy. They are reducing violence in our country. They are fighting the terrorists in our backyard. This is not the time for America to turn our back on Colombia. We need a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote this year on this important free trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to burst anyone's rhetorical bubble here, but this is not a new direction in energy. We ought not oversell this bill. It has some good things we all support, renewable investments and renewables for wind and solar and biomass, hydro and others, which are really good, but 90 percent of this bill is just an extension of what is already in law today.

The only new direction in this bill is that we are outsourcing American energy jobs and raising prices at the pump.

A couple years ago, Congress, worried about too many jobs going overseas, sat down and worked out a new Tax Code that said if you invest, produce, and create jobs here in America, we will give you a lower tax rate than if you do the same overseas. What this bill does is it singles out one American industry, the energy industry, and says no, but not for you. We are going to treat your jobs like foreign jobs. We are going to treat your investments like foreign investments. We are going to treat you as foreign companies, just so we can take your money.

Here we are, almost 2 million American energy jobs at risk, people who have mortgages, have children, are day-to-day doing good work providing us energy, all of a sudden they don't matter anymore. As a result, here we are, facing recession, job losses in America, Michigan, Ohio, and across this country, and we are willing to outsource our American jobs overseas for a political exercise.

The result of this bill, there will be less investment in American energy, there will be less production of American energy, we will have more dependence on foreign oil, and we will have higher fuel prices.

Make no mistake, politicians are shooting at Big Oil, but they are hitting American energy workers and they are hitting families in the pocketbook. Whenever there is no argument left, you will hear this: ExxonMobil is making record profits. You will hear it over and over again.

Well, politicians in Washington ought to hold a mirror up to find out why there are record profits. We have locked off reserves in the gulf and ANWR. We have locked off oil shale. We are killing coal. We are chasing American energy deeper and deeper into costly offshore areas.

More and more of the world's oil reserves are held in unstable governments: Russia, Venezuela, Iran. No wonder prices are so high. The world knows Americans won't take responsibility for its own energy needs, won't explore in stable governments like ourselves, so the American public is paying a political tax at the pump because we won't take responsibility for our own energy needs.

What this Congress has done to lower fuel prices: allowed people to sue OPEC, promoted longer-lasting light bulbs, and, to their credit, directed higher fuel mileage, which is good for everyone but American automakers.

The false choice today is punish American energy, or renewable energy. No. This country needs to do both. Invest in America's traditional energy supply and go after new energy.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on trade issues.

I too rise in support of this bill. I think it is important for Peru to have the transition time to enact the free trade agreement we just worked on. It is important to buy additional time for us to discuss and ultimately pass the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. And I think it is important for our friends in Bolivia and Ecuador to understand that these preferences are temporary, that we want a full trading partnership with them, and it is important that they take concrete steps to move toward the types of signals and improvements in their country, in government, that would allow us ultimately to move to a full partnership for free trade.

When we began this trade agreement, trade preferences in the 1990s, our hope was to create jobs away from drug trafficking in these countries, and it has worked. Millions of jobs have been created benefiting not just the Andean region, but the American workers as well. But this bill is no substitute for a free trade agreement with Colombia. Today we are allowing these countries to sell duty-free, almost without restrictions, into the United States, competing against our workers. We are doing that to help pull them toward democracy, to stimulate their economy, to move them away from narcotrafficking. And it is working. But what we want ultimately is two-way trade. We want the ability of our factory workers, our plant workers, our steelworkers in Texas, for example, today they can go down to the store and buy products from Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador but when we try to sell the products they produce overseas, we are not allowed to. The barriers exist. How is that free trade? How is that fair to the American workers? It is to me irresponsible for us to not take up the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. This is a country with a growing economy. It is a strong ally to the United States. It has made remarkable progress on labor violence. They are in the midst of a civil war. And President Uribe is taking commendable steps, strong leadership steps to solidify that country, to bring democracy and the rule of law, to prosecute those violators. He has made remarkable progress in quelling violence against labor leaders. And indeed unions, productive unions in Colombia support this free trade agreement. For those who believe America is going it alone far too much in the world, it is incomprehensible we would go it alone without Colombia, that we would leave them, walk away from our commitments in that region. It is vital both from an economic standpoint and vital from a security standpoint that we take up and pass the Colombian Free Trade Agreement this year.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of great community and spiritual leaders, Paster Lloyd Maddoux and his wife Pat for their 25 years of service to the ministry at the First Assembly of God in Conroe, Texas. Pastor Maddoux is a true servant to society and has left a lasting impression on numerous lives.

Pastor Maddoux has touched countless lives--when people are in every season of life. Pastor Maddoux has celebrated with families when he's officiated at their weddings and offered blessing over the birth of a new baby. He's helped new Christian believers grow closer in their walks with their Savior through Bible teachings and baptism. He has helped honor the lives of men and women who have passed away with funerals that celebrated their lives and offered hope of eternity through Jesus Christ.

A Pastor is a servant to his congregation and community. Pastor Maddoux has opened up his home church as a shelter for Hurricane Rita victims, where over 300 people and pets took shelter. He and Pat have opened their home many times to help strangers, neighbors and friends.

Not only has he touched lives in our community, but he has reached out to do missions all over this country, as well as abroad in Mexico, the Philippines, Seoul, Korea, West Africa and Turkey. Pastor Maddoux has also touched lives through participating in prison ministries.

He has served in numerous positions such as the board of Greater Houston Teen Challenge and mission boards for the South Texas District- North Houston Section. Pastor Maddoux was a National Finals Chairman for the Oral Roberts University Educational Fellowship. He is the current Presbyter of the North Houston Section of the Assemblies of God Ministers and also served as a committee member. He has helped with Lifestyle Ministries Radio and Lifestyle Christian School, which began in 1985. He is the originator of many traditions in our community, such as the National Day of Prayer in Conroe and the Men's Day of Prayer. He was also a manager at the Kids Camp Victory.

Madam Speaker, Pastor Maddoux and his wife Pat are rare individuals whom I respect greatly. Our nation joins me in honoring both of them today for their 25 years of service to our community and First Assembly of God in Conroe, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I don't need much of an excuse to give people back their own tax money, especially the way we spend it up here in Washington. So I support this measure and appreciate the leadership of President Bush and the bipartisan way this came together.

But let's not hold a parade for ourselves just yet. While economic estimates vary, I am somewhat skeptical about how much impact this tiny package will have on America's large and complex economy. I hope it does. But I worry this yet may become more a political stimulus package than a true economic stimulus.

The truth is our economy is so strong and resilient that it bounces back and recovers quickly from major challenges, whether it's the attacks of 9/11 or the dot-com crash. There's no question the housing downturn and future credit crunch are real and serious, and we ought to look at every way to limit their impact, but not in any way that prolongs those problems or creates an excuse for a spending spree that we cannot afford.

Our goal as a government should be to do no harm. At this point, this package accomplishes that.

In fact, incentives for small businesses I think will help create new business investment in the economy, which keeps and creates jobs. And we should never miss an opportunity to help families at all income levels to stretch their budgets, especially with prices so high.

In the end, we should remember that it is not Washington that creates jobs, but rather a business climate that rewards rather than punishes Americans for working smarter, for succeeding, and developing the innovations that our changing world demands.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Hardin County, Texas, and its residents on their 150th anniversary.

Sixty-eight miles northeast of Houston and 54 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, Hardin County's 897 square miles are covered by pine and hardwood forests. This puts Hardin County in the middle of the beautiful Big Thicket of southeast Texas and the larger east Texas Timberlands region. Natural resources are still a main driver of the local economy and timber, oil, gas, sand, gravel, and salt domes are found within the county.

In 1836 the area was split between the jurisdictions of Liberty and Jefferson counties. Following the region's population growth, in 1858 the legislature established a new county. The new county was named in honor of the Hardin family from nearby Liberty County; the county seat was also to be designated as Hardin. When the Sabine and East Texas Railroad bypassed Hardin in favor of the newly established railroad town, Kountze was made the new county seat.

Long ago, American Indians in the region began to visit what they called Medicine Lake, seeking the healing powers of the mud and mineral water in what we today call Sour Lake. Oil was discovered in 1901 around Sour Lake and quickly became the lifeblood of the area, production later reached 7 million barrels a day. This same discovery allowed for the creation of the Texas Company, better known as Texaco. Today, Hardin County has grown to over 50,000 residents.

Immigrants from Ireland, Germany, France, and other countries were drawn to Hardin County for its oil, timber, livestock and agricultural products. This rich diversity contributed to economic growth and the rich culture Hardin County still enjoys today.

Today, Hardin County is one of the fastest growing areas of southeast Texas--there is a bright future of growth and prosperity. Families are choosing to live in Hardin County because of its outstanding schools and traditional sense of community. Hardin County is the type of place where neighbors check in on each other and catch up at high school football games. Local leaders through out the county have worked hard to maintain Hardin County's quality of life. These men and women are following in the footsteps of early settlers and the county's founders to make Hardin County a better place for hardworking men and women who call it home.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to represent this community in the U.S. House of Representatives and I urge you to join me in congratulating Hardin County on its sesquicentennial birthday.

Madam Speaker, let's check the facts. The facts are the only reason we're here today is because the Democrat Congress created this alternative tax. The only reason we're here today is because a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, vetoed the repeal of this alternative tax. That's why we're here today.

As for being fiscally responsible, let's check the facts for just this year alone. For years, Democrats have said it is irresponsible not to pay for this war; it's irresponsible to borrow for this war. This year, they have spent, with our support, billions of dollars for this war and didn't pay for a dime.

The majority leader stood on this floor and said it was fiscally irresponsible to raise the debt limit; yet they did it in the first 60 days in their own budget.

This year they have used multiple pay-fors, the same pay-fors, more than 20 times on different bills; just this week, the same pay-for on two different bills within 24 hours. That's like using your house for collateral over and over and over for different loans, which is called fraud, and they've even used budget gimmicks by directing our own budget office to assume there will be no terrorist attacks for the next 5 years so they can avoid their own PAYGO rules.

PAYGO, the way it is working this year is a sham. A sham. Being lectured on fiscal irresponsibility by this Democratic Congress is like being lectured on parenting by Britney Spears; it makes no sense at all.

What we need to do is sit down together and find a way to cut this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I have voted against this bill twice in the Chamber. I rise today in support of it.

This bill will now, in the right way, provide relief to American families who, after losing their homes in the past, have gotten a bill from Uncle Sam, and it is wrong. At a time when people struggle to keep their homes and they may lose them or have to sell them at a loss, we shouldn't be kicking them when they are down. This bill will right that wrong, giving taxpayers temporary relief for at least 3 years, and will also allow taxpayers to continue to deduct the premiums that they pay for mortgage insurance, which will help a number of people afford homes.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased that the Senate stripped from this bill something we sent out of the House twice, which was wrong. What we attempted to do was to increase the taxes on people who own second homes. Now, the original thought would be, that must be the wealthy. It's not; it's the middle class. In fact, 40 percent of all the home sales last year in America were to second homebuyers. And they're not the wealthy. The average income of those buyers was $82,000. So, we were punishing middle-class families for scrimping on their first mortgage so they could save up for a vacation home or resort home or retirement home or maybe even an investment. That would have punished families. It would have hurt, I think, many communities whose future relies upon retirees in resort and vacation homes, and would have deepened the housing problems here in America rather than aid them. A number of us fought against that provision. We're pleased that the Senate removed it. This makes this a very bipartisan bill that has strong support. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Let me point out, too, that I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Rangel on this, and I appreciate that he recognized this problem and moved on it. I appreciate the leadership of Mr. Lewis and Mr. Andrews, who have fought for this legislation for many years.

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.

Among the many important provisions of this bill, it updates current law to ensure that veterans who have served after 1977 can qualify for low-interest home loans financed by Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds. It allows veterans who are not first-time homebuyers to also benefit from this special program.

This bill is important to our home State of Texas. This will enable the Texas Veterans Land Board, headed by Land Commissioner Jerry Paterson, to expand its existing low-interest loan program to thousands of more Texas veterans, helping a new generation of veterans own a piece of the American Dream.

For all the sacrifice our veterans make to defend our country, it is only right that we help them upon their return home to America.

I thank Chairman Rangel, Mr. Larson and all of those who have contributed to this bill, as well as Mr. Reynolds, who has worked so hard, and Republicans who are supporting this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, it's sort of hard to listen to lectures about fiscal responsibility. For years Democrats have claimed that it is time to pay for this war; it's fiscally irresponsible not to pay for this war; it ought to be part of the budget. Have they paid for the war? No, not a dime.

For years they said it's irresponsible to raise the debt limit; it's all your fault; we cannot raise the debt limit. What did they do the first 2 months of this session? Raise the public debt limit.

For years they've said we need to pay for all our spending, pay for all our taxes. So what have they done?

I have a list of 27 different pay-fors that have been used multiple times already in this session. It's like using your home as collateral 27 different times. In the real world we call that fraud.

It's unfortunate we are here today. I honestly don't believe when Democrats created this tax in the 1960s that they intended ever to cover this many middle-class Americans. But it has happened. Republicans, to their credit, had killed the AMT in 1999, but President Clinton unfortunately vetoed it. Today it has gotten bigger and badder and worse than ever. It is appropriate that we move to both freeze and then to repeal the alternative minimum tax. But there are real serious problems with this bill.

Paying for a temporary tax of 1 year with a permanent tax is just, again, fiscally irresponsible. It is like taking a loan out to pay for a cheeseburger.

This bill ignores the need to continue tax relief for States that have State and local sales tax deductions, for college tuition tax credits, for research and development tax credits, even for teachers who take classroom supplies and pay for them out of their pockets, we're not addressing their needs. And those all expire at the end of this year.

Finally, I think it is a mistake to raise taxes in order to prevent a tax increase. What we ought to be doing is we ought to be sitting down together, Republicans and Democrats, figuring out a way to thoughtfully and carefully trim this budget, this big, fat, bloated, obese budget up here so we don't increase taxes. Before Washington asks families to tighten their belt, we ought to sit down and tighten our belt first.

This is a bad bill, a fiscally irresponsible bill, and I urge opposition.

Mr. Speaker, last November Democrats looked the American people in the eye and they promised, they promised they would lower gas prices and become energy independent. Instead, gas prices are almost a dollar higher at the pump and America is more dependent on foreign oil than ever.

This new Democrat Congress has failed miserably; unless, of course, you count promoting energy-efficient light bulbs and threatening to sue OPEC, for whatever that is worth.

To be fair, there are good things in this bill, such as increasing gas mileage for cars and trucks and extending Republican tax incentives to encourage more energy-efficient technology and more renewable energy such as solar, wind, biomass and geothermal.

But this bill is disappointing because it launches yet another attack on Texas and American energy producers who are trying to create jobs and explore for new energy here in America. It also cripples the emerging biodiesel industry which is important to the Nation as we seek alternatives to gasoline.

Let me tell you this: OPEC is going to love this bill. OPEC is going to love this bill, but families who are going to pay more at the pump and pay higher electric bills at home are going to hate it. Thank goodness this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.

We need more energy, a balanced approach, not more higher gas prices and higher electric prices. This bill deserves to be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, there are good things in this bill.

I think it's important that we address the AMT. It was created in 1969 by a Democrat Congress for the wealthy. Now it's affecting our teachers and our firefighters and just average families.

There is a State and local sales tax deduction in this bill, very important for families because sales taxes really add up fast. But these tax increases are troubling and risky. Like AMT, there are unintended consequences that will damage our economy.

We are launching an assault on the real estate and housing industry, increasing taxes on second homes and leveling a potentially devastating tax increase on real estate partnerships.

Now, these real estate partnerships, there are a lot of them. People say, oh, it's just corporations. There are 1.1 million partnerships who have done nothing wrong in America but build apartments in our communities, shopping centers, office buildings and industrial parks. This tax is seen as the most potentially devastating tax on them since 1986, which launched massive loan defaults and foreclosures. These are traditional real estate partnerships.

And people say, well, we are aiming at Wall Street. Well, they are aiming at Wall Street, but they're going to hit Main Street America, and the result is lower property values, fewer construction jobs, and risky lending in real estate partnerships who have done nothing wrong.

And finally, this bill levies a $2 billion tax increase on families who have

scrimped their whole lives to get a second home. These are not wealthy people. The average income is about $82,000 for those who buy a second time. And 40 percent, four out of 10 sales last year were second home buyers, people who scrimped on their first home so they might have a cabin or a place by a lake or something for their family to retire to. These higher taxes are going to damage their investments. They're going to lower property values. It's going to hurt every community across this country that relies upon these second homes. Whether you're at the lakes, the river, or out in the parks, these tax increases are dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, it is our opportunity to talk about the tax burden that families in America unfortunately must pay.

I am a six-term Member of Congress. I represent the Eighth Congressional District of Texas. It's a great district that encompasses a great deal of east Texas from the Louisiana border over to I-45. I live in The Woodlands, Texas, just north of Houston, with my wife and our two boys, a kindergarten son named Sean and a third-grader named Will, who goes to public school, Sally K. Ride Elementary School. We are

blessed to have a great school system in our community.

I have enjoyed serving on the Ways and Means Committee because for many years, as I've told my wife, I get to go to work each day trying to cut taxes from families and small businesses so they have less of a burden. It seems to me we have an overtax, and we are an overtaxed Nation. Most families pay more in taxes than they do for food and housing and clothing combined. Many families work, and most workers work into June and July, actually, after July 4th, before they have paid all their taxes. They don't start working for themselves until almost the seventh month of every year.

And just think about each of the days our families live. You wake up in the morning and you take a shower and you pay a water tax. If you get a cup of coffee, you pay a sales tax. If you drive to work, you pay a gas tax. At work you pay two taxes, an income tax and a payroll tax. You get home and turn on the lights, you pay an electricity tax. You turn on the TV, you pay a cable tax. Get on the phone, you pay a telephone tax. You get ready for bed and kiss your spouse and you pay a marriage tax. And you do this day in and day out for years until when you pass away, you pay a death tax.

We are an overtaxed Nation. This new Congress is bent on increasing that tax burden on America's families and those who create jobs. Already, this Congress has, in the House, approved over $110 billion, billion dollars, worth of new taxes. For those of us who believe the more you tax something the less that you get, what we are seeing is an all-out assault on jobs in America. We are taxing American energy workers.

This Congress seeks to tax American capital, American manufacturing, American small businesses, and tomorrow, this Chamber is set to take up two new tax increases: a major tax increase on the real estate partnerships of America who build our apartments and shopping centers, our office buildings and industrial parks, and another tax that would increase the tax on hardworking Americans who have scrimped hard and saved to buy a second home, maybe a retirement home for their family.

I am going to talk about this for just a minute, then I am joined with two of the leaders of the Ways and Means Committee who are going to talk about the alternative minimum tax, and we will talk about what is now called the ``mother of all tax hikes'' proposed by the chairman of the Ways and Means, Charlie Rangel.

The two provisions I am talking about tomorrow that do not deserve to pass, one is a tax on the small partnerships that build America. Real estate partnerships are a routine, traditional, very responsible way to build facilities in our local community. This tax would tax those small businesses and partnerships, increasing their taxes $6.7 billion, billion, over the next 10 years. This tax increase is described by many as perhaps the most dangerous and risky tax increase on the real estate community since the 1986 tax law, whose changes drove many of our real estate into foreclosure, helped lead into the S&L, savings and loan credit problem, and will undoubtedly cost jobs in America. Some in Washington say, ``No, no, no. We are not targeting America's small business and real estate professionals. We are targeting Wall Street.'' The truth of the matter is that they are shooting at Wall Street; they are hitting Main Street. They are hitting our real estate partnerships, our energy partnerships, our venture capital and local groups that have done nothing wrong except build our infrastructure in our local community and help create jobs.

It is simply wrong, in my view, to tax these organizations. They are the traditional, predominate business model. This tax increase will not only cost jobs, it will cost construction jobs. It will harm property values and really lower government revenue at the local level. I think it is important that we not punish the real estate partnerships that are such an important fabric of our country. And why risk, why help drive more of this housing bubble? Why cause more problems for the real estate industry when, in truth, we can encourage more of this development?

The second tax increase we will face tomorrow, and I hope we will vote down, is a tax increase that hits small businesses, or actually hits families that have saved hard for a second home. It is proposed that we change the tax increase, the capital gains tax, on people who own a second home. Now, we did some research on this. What we discovered, a lot of people think this is the wealthy. We did research on it and discovered that 40 percent of all the home sales last year were to second homes, four out of ten home sales to second homes. And those who bought those homes weren't wealthy. According to the National Association of Realtors, on average, their income was about $82,000. They were buying a second home for their family. Some were investing for their retirement. Others have a favorite lake or river that they have always dreamed of having a cabin on or a lodge on and may have, in fact, done everything right. Many of them have scrimped on their first home so they could try to buy another for their dream in their retirement, for their family's quality of life. It seems to me when you look at punishing people who have worked hard to try to buy that home, we ought not do it.

When you look at the impact on your communities around the country, second home market's where it is very important to the local community. You see many of them in New England where you have buyers from New York, Washington, Philadelphia and all along the East Coast. You see many of them in California and in Florida where you naturally have retirees. But it is not limited to that. Arizona, North Carolina, all throughout the Midwest in areas where there are beautiful lakes and rivers and wide open spaces, then you have the high tech communities and others that invest in second homes.

It just seems to me that this is dangerous to discourage this type of investment. I think we risk in the future harming the property values in the communities that rely upon these resort-type of homes and vacation homes. It seems to me unfair that we would penalize and punish people who have worked so hard to save. We ought not be doing that. We ought to be rewarding that type of behavior.

My hope is that tomorrow as Congress or this U.S. House of Representatives considers these bills that, in fact, we reject these tax increases on the real estate partnerships that build America and reject tax increases on families that scrimped for a second home, maybe perhaps their dream home.

With that, I would like to yield to the ranking member, the highest ranking Republican on the Trade Subcommittee on Ways and Means. This gentleman is from California. He is a conservative who has led the fight for tax relief in many areas throughout the years here in Congress. And I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

On top of that, besides letting the President's tax cuts expire, there is a new range of taxes, this mother of all tax hikes, MATH, that adds even more tax increases on top of that, is that correct?

Mr. Herger, thank you for raising this issue. Thank you for standing on behalf of families and for your leadership on tax relief in this country.

Our next speaker probably ought to be known as ``Mr. Manufacture,'' because I don't know anyone who works harder on behalf of manufacturing workers in America, especially in the northeast, than the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He is a long-time member of the Ways and Means Committee. He has a tremendous reputation for looking out for the tax burden of families; more importantly, keeping our U.S. companies competitive so we can compete anywhere throughout the world against anyone and help create new jobs here in America.

I would yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. English.

I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

In the name of tax reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation's report that came out today, even though this is called tax reform, 113 million families will see their tax burden go up and only a few, 9 million, will see their taxes go down; is that correct?

And as I understand it, although this proposal will soak the wealthy and the small businesses in America, it also soaks the working-class families, many who make less than $75,000 a year, according to the report released today, will see a major increase in their taxes. These are families that make less than $75,000 a year, it will increase taxes on those families?

And I know we are having a debate tomorrow on the alternative minimum tax. I think many of us are concerned that this is an opportunity to increase taxes. The alternative minimum tax was a mistake to begin with. It targeted a few wealthy millionaires. Now it has spread unintentionally to 3 or 4 million Americans. There is an argument in Washington today that says to a person, we intend to tax you in a couple of years, but we are not going to do that and so we will increase taxes on other Americans to cover the tax increase you don't have.

I think many of us believe it is right to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. It is a mistake. It is a second tax. It is a wrong tax, and should be stopped today. Many of us believe that should not be an excuse for raising taxes on others. In fact, the best solution is if you look at the next 10 years of spending in America, our government will spend nearly $50 trillion over the next 10 years. And I think many of us believe that rather than finding excuses to add tax burden to American families and small businesses, we ought to sit down together, both parties, and see if we can identify less than a trillion dollars of that.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I think

there is a clear philosophical difference between the two parties. As Republicans, we believe what you earn is your money. I think our new majority here believes what you earn is the government's money.

I think most of us agree before we ask through these tax increases, before we demand that families tighten their belt, maybe us in Washington ought to be tightening our belts first to try to put this government on a diet and try to make better use of the moneys that the people send us.

I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania's leadership on this issue.

I turn now to the gentleman from New Jersey who represents both rural and suburban households, some who do well, but others who are just working-class Americans. He has fought hard against tax increases during his time in Congress, and I welcome the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for pointing out we do have a choice between higher taxes and tightening our belt here in Washington, D.C.

As a Republican, as a conservative, I'm convinced that the reason Republicans got fired from their job of leading Congress is that we didn't balance the budget. We didn't secure the border. We didn't lead with integrity. And I think it is a fair criticism that we should have done much better in getting a handle of this spending machine that we call Washington, D.C.

However, I hear all the time the reason we have record debt and the record public debt is because of our tax increases or tax relief spending and we did not pay for the war.

The truth of the matter is we are having record revenue here in America. After 9/11, during the recession and after 9/11, we actually saw a decrease in revenue the first time in years, not slowing, a decrease. We put in place tax relief to help spur the economy, create new jobs. Our thought was we want to create jobs around America, leave the money in the pockets of Americans so it can work around Main Street and the shopping centers and go to work, and it has done that. We've had 7 million new jobs created over the last few years, record revenues, double digit revenues coming in to Washington. Our problem is not our revenues. Our problem is spending.

We hear criticism that Democrats do not support tax relief or the new spending and they would have paid for the war. But the truth of the matter is the first President's tax relief was $1.3 trillion that Republicans proposed. Democrat tax relief was $1.2 trillion tax relief that they voted.

The second major tax reform, the Jobs Creation Act 2004 was passed overwhelmingly with nearly 80 Democrat Members joining in that tax relief. The spending on recovering New York from 9/11 was bipartisan, overwhelming. The spending on Katrina and Rita was bipartisan and overwhelming. Medicare, the Democrat Medicare plan was three times as large as the Republican plan.

In fact, all of the spending bills the Republicans proposed that Democrats opposed, they opposed not because they were too small, but they weren't high enough.

And so what we are faced today with is a choice between raising taxes to balance the budget. We're tightening our belts, working together, Republicans and Democrats, and I know up here that seems to be a poisonous thing to do. But the truth of the matter, I think most Members of both parties would like to balance this budget as best we can, as soon as we can. I don't think we ought to increase taxes to do it. There are better ways.

Mr. Speaker, I see faces of trade myself. I recently did a tour of our manufacturing plants. We have over 300 of them in the Eighth Congressional District of Texas from steel mills to paper mills. I watched the workers on those lines working every day to produce those products. Between one-third and one-half of those products are made for sales overseas.

What they find is that when they try to compete around the world, they aren't allowed to compete. America is so open for every product from every country. But when we try to sell our products and our goods, what we see are America need-not-apply signs all throughout this world.

Our trade policy is to tear down those signs, to give those workers in my plants a chance to sell their products around the world. There is a principle applied to the trade that we deal with today. The principle is, if you or I build a better mousetrap, we should be free to sell it throughout the world without government interference. If someone else builds a better mousetrap, we should be free to buy it for our family or for our business, again without government interference. That freedom to buy, to sell and to compete our products and our skills is an important economic freedom.

This trade agreement opens Peru's market, gives us the freedom to sell our products and goods into that country, for our agriculture community, for our manufacturing workers, and for our service community. As importantly, it reaffirms America's long-term commitment to both growth and prosperity here and at home in Latin America.

This agreement is important because for the first time in a long time, America is speaking as one voice on trade. Republicans and Democrats, this Congress and the White House are speaking as one voice to level the playing field for our farmers and our workers around the world. We are going from one-way trade to two-way trade.

These free trade agreements that we have with 14 to 15 countries are working. Today, they are only a small part of the world market, yet they buy nearly half of what my workers and America's workers export around the world. We are seeing growth in sales, growth in services, growth in products, and good-paying jobs in America.

One of the key points today is Peru is a great trading partner and they have been for 16 years. They have one of the most dynamic emerging economies in the Americas. They have instituted democratic reforms, they have decreased poverty, and they have improved their labor and environmental standards significantly. Why would we turn our back on a country and a partner like Peru?

It is time to go from a limited partnership of preferences to a full partnership of free trade with the country of Peru. Tonight I heard people say, well, the Peruvians don't support this. The workers don't support this.

How arrogant. The Peruvian Congress has twice voted overwhelmingly to ratify this agreement. They elected a President based on his support of this trade agreement. Their leading lawmaker's party ran on supporting this agreement. How arrogant it is for us to talk about Peru when their own elected leaders support this agreement.

It is important, not just about jobs for America, not just about jobs in Peru, it is important we remain engaged in Latin America. There is a reason why eight of our living Secretaries of State have implored this Congress to stay engaged. Now is not the time to build walls to Latin America. Now is the time to build bridges.

Now is the time to continue to stay engaged as countries like Peru reject the influence of Hugo Chavez and embrace democracy and free speech and the rule of law and labor rights and human rights. They are doing the right thing. We ought to be reaching out and responding more to them.

I will make this point. America does create jobs through trade. In 1995, when NAFTA first took effect, our economy was less than $7 trillion. Today it is more than $13 trillion. Back then we had 115 million people working in America. Today we have over 140 million people working in America.

Trade creates jobs, and look at the top 10 trade States whose jobs are dependent upon our sales: Texas, California, New York, Washington, Illinois, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, all the top 10 States whose jobs are directly related to exports. Then we have the heartland States of agriculture and the high tech States throughout the country, all of which depend upon us opening new markets, tearing down that sign, and creating jobs. This is an agreement worth our support.

Madam 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 a home. This bill updates current law to ensure that veterans who served after 1977 can qualify for low-interest home loans financed by the Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds.

Back home in Texas, this bill is going to enable Texas' Veterans Land Board to expand its existing low-interest loan

program to several thousand more Texas veterans, several thousand, helping a new generation of veterans own a piece of the American Dream. Our land commissioner, Jerry Patterson, a Marine veteran himself, does an excellent job supervising this program and reaching out to veterans. This bill is going to allow him, and our State, to help more veterans get into a home they can afford. My thought is for all the sacrifice our veterans make to defend our country, it is only right that we help them upon their return home.